quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:Did you mean to say no-boner?! That seems a little inappropriate.
I meant no-brainer
I thought so.
I thought so.
quote:Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:
I meant no-brainer
I thought so.
i wondered about that aswell
Makes me feel very very very sad.
Apart from the fact these families and the supporting community have been torn apart by this,it puts everyone who works with children under scrutiny and totally diminishes trust parents have in the abilities of those who work with children to protect them.
Apart from the fact these families and the supporting community have been torn apart by this,it puts everyone who works with children under scrutiny and totally diminishes trust parents have in the abilities of those who work with children to protect them.
quote:Originally posted by china:
i wondered about that aswell
I had only just woke up
quote:Originally posted by Mazzystar:
Makes me feel very very very sad.
Apart from the fact these families and the supporting community have been torn apart by this,it puts everyone who works with children under scrutiny and totally diminishes trust parents have in the abilities of those who work with children to protect them.
Totally agree with you Mazz
Thereagain, I do feel that people who work with children should be extensively vetted before given any job. Also, once they are working with children, complacency should never set in.
quote:Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:quote:Originally posted by Supercalifragilistic:
Quennie, agree with what you've said re the unfair perception of women 'involved' as being seen as worse than men e.g. Maxine Carr etc. BUT recent research suggests that it is not safe to assume the above....far more women than we previously knew about are sexually abusive in their own right, not just as 'accomplices' etc
Sorry, my terminology was a little flippant, what I should have said was that the vast majority of sexual predators are men. I know that there are women out there who do take a more active role in abuse but I believe that they are still in a significant minority.
I think and feel that you're almost certainly right. That said, predation is different to sexual interest and I have a suspicion that abuse in the home by women is probably under-reported.
I can see biological differences between the sexes being responsible for the gender gap between sexual predators. I wonder though whether paedophilia is more evenly spread between the sexes.
As I've suggested a number of times in the past, I suspect there are many more paedophiles (of both sexes) than we realise and I reckon most of them don't actually go on to commit direct abuse. I wish there were more data.
quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
you may not want to hear that but its true, that isnt to say i dont agree with everyone else if they are guilty they should lock them up and melt down the key so it can never be used again but although the thought of someone harming a child makes me feel ill i once saw someone publish an article that we could in fact be putting children in more danger if we gave the sick bastards life because it was like going back to the old days of "you might as well get hung for a sheep instead of a lamb" in that at present someone who rapes or injures a child will get a shorter sentence than someone who kills a child but if both were the same it might lead to more children being killed after all either way the perpetrator would get life.
I understand totally what you are say in respect of that. What is the answer though? Children need to be protected and it is far better/safer to have these monsters locked up and off the street where they cannot harm any child. Chemical castration doesn't seem to work and neither does rehabilitation. Supervising them when they are released is a no-brainer, imo. We have to lock them up and never let them out.
well i'm afraid that until a better solution is found i do agree with you ll, i was just throwing that into the debate because whoever wrote it did make a valid point i thought (although he made it a lot better than my ramble)
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:quote:Originally posted by Supercalifragilistic:
Quennie, agree with what you've said re the unfair perception of women 'involved' as being seen as worse than men e.g. Maxine Carr etc. BUT recent research suggests that it is not safe to assume the above....far more women than we previously knew about are sexually abusive in their own right, not just as 'accomplices' etc
Sorry, my terminology was a little flippant, what I should have said was that the vast majority of sexual predators are men. I know that there are women out there who do take a more active role in abuse but I believe that they are still in a significant minority.
I think and feel that you're almost certainly right. That said, predation is different to sexual interest and I have a suspicion that abuse in the home by women is probably under-reported.
I can see biological differences between the sexes being responsible for the gender gap between sexual predators. I wonder though whether paedophilia is more evenly spread between the sexes.
As I've suggested a number of times in the past, I suspect there are many more paedophiles (of both sexes) than we realise and I reckon most of them don't actually go on to commit direct abuse. I wish there were more data.
i suspect that what you say could be true.
do remember that child abuse isnt just sexual there are many ways a child can be harmed.
quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by Mazzystar:
Makes me feel very very very sad.
Apart from the fact these families and the supporting community have been torn apart by this,it puts everyone who works with children under scrutiny and totally diminishes trust parents have in the abilities of those who work with children to protect them.
Totally agree with you Mazz
Thereagain, I do feel that people who work with children should be extensively vetted before given any job. Also, once they are working with children, complacency should never set in.
is there any point in vetting beyond checking for a prior record? after all those who work with children because they want to prey on them will most likely not be known to police and where will the checks end? how about using sodium pentathol on everyone who works with children.
quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
is there any point in vetting beyond checking for a prior record? after all those who work with children because they want to prey on them will most likely not be known to police and where will the checks end? how about using sodium pentathol on everyone who works with children.
Well, quite. It doesn't stop the first offenders or the perps who have so far got away with it. Even multiple character references won't ncessarily help.
These abuses are against the most vulnerable members of society and most of us have a biological drive to protect the young but it's worth recognising that they are actually quite rare events.
The negative impacts of these events are huge for the people involved of course but the negative impact on society, and its culture, of inappropriate action because Something Must Be Done is pretty bad too.
well she has now been charged with amongst other things "seriuos sexual misconduct with a child under 13" on three girls and one boy at the nursery, remanded in custody to appear at the crown court in september.
quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by Mazzystar:
Makes me feel very very very sad.
Apart from the fact these families and the supporting community have been torn apart by this,it puts everyone who works with children under scrutiny and totally diminishes trust parents have in the abilities of those who work with children to protect them.
Totally agree with you Mazz
Thereagain, I do feel that people who work with children should be extensively vetted before given any job. Also, once they are working with children, complacency should never set in.
there in lies the problem, the CRB (criminal records bureau) checks are only for past criminal activity. a person needs one for each job they apply for. they could then be in that job for many years, with no further checks.
there is also the ISA (independent safeguarding authority), they work in partnership with the CRB, but i don't know if they do any indepth checks. so that's two agencies that do the same thing, except the ISA is a government register you have to be on if you want to work with kids and the vunerable.
www.isa-gov.org.uk
quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
is there any point in vetting beyond checking for a prior record? after all those who work with children because they want to prey on them will most likely not be known to police and where will the checks end? how about using sodium pentathol on everyone who works with children.
Vetting for a prior record is a must, of course. I agree that not all abusers have a record or are known to police. It is difficult, I realise that but to use the phrase "something must be done", something must be done to protect our children. It doesn't matter if abuse is rare, abuse happens and whether it is rare or not, is immaterial (imo). One case of abuse is enough.
quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
is there any point in vetting beyond checking for a prior record? after all those who work with children because they want to prey on them will most likely not be known to police and where will the checks end? how about using sodium pentathol on everyone who works with children.
Vetting for a prior record is a must, of course. I agree that not all abusers have a record or are known to police. It is difficult, I realise that but to use the phrase "something must be done", something must be done to protect our children. It doesn't matter if abuse is rare, abuse happens and whether it is rare or not, is immaterial (imo). One case of abuse is enough.
oh i agree one case is one too many.
its just that how far can / do we go in doing these checks, as they stand current checks should identify an possible offender who may be known to police but to take checking beyond that is currently not possible without running one of two risks, firstly that the checks become so intrusive that it prevents anyone from going through them or secondly that we start to see everyone who wants to work with children as some kind of paedophile, both of those would be a disaster.
trust me when i say i know just how intrusive some checks can be, we've been through some of the most personal and intrusive checks going before being cleared as foster carers, i suspect much of which was related totaly to the fact that we are a gay couple but believe me when i say if the same checks were done on everyone not only would the whole system collapse but you'd be hard put to find people prepared to be put through it.
to give you an idea, apart from all the expected police and background checks we had a specialist psychologist(one that deals with suspected or convicted paedophiles) and a psychiatrist at our home every weekday for just over a month, one asking questions and one observing how we answered them, if anything was mentioned (family, friends, places, schools, work etc) everything was checked including their backgrounds. at the end of it all their report stated that they could find no evidence that we were likely to be any danger to children and that it was considered that anyone likely to visit us was not likely to pose a threat either, now we went through all that and stuck with it but how many people would be prepared for that level of scrutiny or even be in a position where they could have people ghosting them whatever they were doing and wherever they were going?
quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
oh i agree one case is one too many.
its just that how far can / do we go in doing these checks, as they stand current checks should identify an possible offender who may be known to police but to take checking beyond that is currently not possible without running one of two risks, firstly that the checks become so intrusive that it prevents anyone from going through them or secondly that we start to see everyone who wants to work with children as some kind of paedophile, both of those would be a disaster.
trust me when i say i know just how intrusive some checks can be, we've been through some of the most personal and intrusive checks going before being cleared as foster carers, i suspect much of which was related totaly to the fact that we are a gay couple but believe me when i say if the same checks were done on everyone not only would the whole system collapse but you'd be hard put to find people prepared to be put through it.
to give you an idea, apart from all the expected police and background checks we had a specialist psychologist(one that deals with suspected or convicted paedophiles) and a psychiatrist at our home every weekday for just over a month, one asking questions and one observing how we answered them, if anything was mentioned (family, friends, places, schools, work etc) everything was checked including their backgrounds. at the end of it all their report stated that they could find no evidence that we were likely to be any danger to children and that it was considered that anyone likely to visit us was not likely to pose a threat either, now we went through all that and stuck with it but how many people would be prepared for that level of scrutiny or even be in a position where they could have people ghosting them whatever they were doing and wherever they were going?
I don't have the answers tbh. I applaud you for wanting to foster and it must be incredibly difficult to go through such intrusive checks but..... I honestly do feel that they are necessary where children are concerned. If these checks were not done and, god forbid, something did happen to a child, those doing the checks would be in serious trouble, not to mention the obvious affect on the children. I am not saying that it is fool proof, but without them we would be in a far worse place. I do agree that it could deter people from working with children, even fostering children but if you want to work/foster children that badly, then this is something that you will have to go through. Protecting the child is paramount.
It is very hard and difficult to know what to do.
quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
oh i agree one case is one too many.
its just that how far can / do we go in doing these checks, as they stand current checks should identify an possible offender who may be known to police but to take checking beyond that is currently not possible without running one of two risks, firstly that the checks become so intrusive that it prevents anyone from going through them or secondly that we start to see everyone who wants to work with children as some kind of paedophile, both of those would be a disaster.
trust me when i say i know just how intrusive some checks can be, we've been through some of the most personal and intrusive checks going before being cleared as foster carers, i suspect much of which was related totaly to the fact that we are a gay couple but believe me when i say if the same checks were done on everyone not only would the whole system collapse but you'd be hard put to find people prepared to be put through it.
to give you an idea, apart from all the expected police and background checks we had a specialist psychologist(one that deals with suspected or convicted paedophiles) and a psychiatrist at our home every weekday for just over a month, one asking questions and one observing how we answered them, if anything was mentioned (family, friends, places, schools, work etc) everything was checked including their backgrounds. at the end of it all their report stated that they could find no evidence that we were likely to be any danger to children and that it was considered that anyone likely to visit us was not likely to pose a threat either, now we went through all that and stuck with it but how many people would be prepared for that level of scrutiny or even be in a position where they could have people ghosting them whatever they were doing and wherever they were going?
I don't have the answers tbh. I applaud you for wanting to foster and it must be incredibly difficult to go through such intrusive checks but..... I honestly do feel that they are necessary where children are concerned. If these checks were not done and, god forbid, something did happen to a child, those doing the checks would be in serious trouble, not to mention the obvious affect on the children. I am not saying that it is fool proof, but without them we would be in a far worse place. I do agree that it could deter people from working with children, even fostering children but if you want to work/foster children that badly, then this is something that you will have to go through. Protecting the child is paramount.
It is very hard and difficult to know what to do.
well assuming that there are only around 8-10 of these specialists in england (no idea about other regions) and each check will take 6 weeks thats going to be around 85 people a year that could be cleared and thats if none of them do the jobs they are supposed to be doing (working with paedophiles) so with 85 cleared people a year thats going to leave no teachers, no youth groups, no cubs or scouts or guides, no social workers or anyone else working with children and i'm sorry but that alone would put them at a lot more risk.
and whats really silly is that although our housekeeper is ecrb checked our gardener certainly isnt so the reality is that you'd need to do those kind of checks on everyone in the uk and everyone coming to the uk.
quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
to give you an idea, apart from all the expected police and background checks we had a specialist psychologist(one that deals with suspected or convicted paedophiles) and a psychiatrist at our home every weekday for just over a month, one asking questions and one observing how we answered them, if anything was mentioned (family, friends, places, schools, work etc) everything was checked including their backgrounds. at the end of it all their report stated that they could find no evidence that we were likely to be any danger to children and that it was considered that anyone likely to visit us was not likely to pose a threat either, now we went through all that and stuck with it but how many people would be prepared for that level of scrutiny or even be in a position where they could have people ghosting them whatever they were doing and wherever they were going?
Good grief. I never realised people had to go through all that! Or is it just gay couples?
The unfortunate reality is that one case isn't too many. Like most things in the real world, there are costs and benefits calculations and hard choices for normal people to make.
We don't apply the principle of "one case is too many" to road deaths, for example. 3000 a year is apparently acceptable. That's not great if you're the victim or their family and friends, of course, but okay for the rest of us as we want to live normally.
The benefit of accepting a level of risk greater than zero is that traffic flows properly through villages, towns and cities, and journey times and traffic volumes on our trunk roads allow our society to function.
If anything is acceptable to stop events like this nursery-related one then CCTVs, for example, would be required in homes, schools, clubs, and nurseries like in Orwell's 1984, with secret state observers, so that residents and visitors would never know whether they were being monitored.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
to give you an idea, apart from all the expected police and background checks we had a specialist psychologist(one that deals with suspected or convicted paedophiles) and a psychiatrist at our home every weekday for just over a month, one asking questions and one observing how we answered them, if anything was mentioned (family, friends, places, schools, work etc) everything was checked including their backgrounds. at the end of it all their report stated that they could find no evidence that we were likely to be any danger to children and that it was considered that anyone likely to visit us was not likely to pose a threat either, now we went through all that and stuck with it but how many people would be prepared for that level of scrutiny or even be in a position where they could have people ghosting them whatever they were doing and wherever they were going?
Good grief. I never realised people had to go through all that! Or is it just gay couples?
The unfortunate reality is that one case isn't too many. Like most things in the real world, there are costs and benefits calculations and hard choices for normal people to make.
We don't apply the principle of "one case is too many" to road deaths, for example. 3000 a year is apparently acceptable. That's not great if you're the victim or their family and friends, of course, but okay for the rest of us as we want to live normally.
The benefit of accepting a level of risk greater than zero is that traffic flows properly through villages, towns and cities, and journey times and traffic volumes on our trunk roads allow our society to function.
If anything is acceptable to stop events like this nursery-related one then CCTVs, for example, would be required in homes, schools, clubs, and nurseries like in Orwell's 1984, with secret state observers, so that residents and visitors would never know whether they were being monitored.
well, i'd like to THINK it was everyone however i suspect that is not the case.
the cctv issue you raise is a good one however as shown in this case its pointless, the fact is that since you couldnt have cameras in places like changing rooms, washrooms and toilets you are providing places where sexual abuse can take place (same applies for bullying at schools) and if cctv was installed in those places then you'd be open to all sorts of problems.
you are of course correct about one case too many problem but i think that in the case of most people when children are involved we all feel that one case is too many after all the government has used the same thing in its anti terror campaign to curtail all our freedoms ad sadly way too many people just accept it.
some of this goes back to my old freedom of speech arguement that if we actualy didnt react to paedophiles in the way we naturaly do but allowed them to openly discuss it we would have a better chance of being able to act to prevent abuse taking place by being more aware of who was involved with it instead of driving it underground and making it harder to detect.
i have to go out now (but i look forward to continuing this discussion when i'm able to, i'm just glad it hasnt decended into a thread like the OMG version.
My husband and I are trying to adopt and we are being put through the ringer. I appreciate that checks must be made, particularly where such an important issue is at stake, but the intrusive, explicit questioning is awful.
quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
i have to go out now (but i look forward to continuing this discussion when i'm able to, i'm just glad it hasnt decended into a thread like the OMG version.
It's too important a subject, I feel, for that to happen.
quote:Originally posted by Hollygolightly:
My husband and I are trying to adopt and we are being put through the ringer. I appreciate that checks must be made, particularly where such an important issue is at stake, but the intrusive, explicit questioning is awful.
yes, it does get pretty explicit at times doesnt it?
quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
i have to go out now (but i look forward to continuing this discussion when i'm able to, i'm just glad it hasnt decended into a thread like the OMG version.
It's too important a subject, I feel, for that to happen.
hopefully so.
pity its getting drowned in "more important" stuff like evictions etc.
quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
the cctv issue you raise is a good one however as shown in this case its pointless, the fact is that since you couldnt have cameras in places like changing rooms, washrooms and toilets you are providing places where sexual abuse can take place (same applies for bullying at schools) and if cctv was installed in those places then you'd be open to all sorts of problems.
you are of course correct about one case too many problem but i think that in the case of most people when children are involved we all feel that one case is too many after all the government has used the same thing in its anti terror campaign to curtail all our freedoms ad sadly way too many people just accept it.
some of this goes back to my old freedom of speech arguement that if we actualy didnt react to paedophiles in the way we naturaly do but allowed them to openly discuss it we would have a better chance of being able to act to prevent abuse taking place by being more aware of who was involved with it instead of driving it underground and making it harder to detect.
I'd almost like to see the outrage if the government mandated putting CCTV in everyone's home with the excuse that "one sexual abuse case is one too many".
No, it's nice-sounding but it's essentially a slogan for action for its own sake, and each proposal needs to be considered on its own costs and benefits analysis. Also, if we are honest with ourselves and accept that zero risk is completely unrealistic then there does not necessarily need to be any action other than a prosecution in the case at hand.
I'm reminded of the Health & Safety drive whenever I hear that Something Must Be Done. It serves a purpose but, well, it can go too far as I'm sure most people will agree ... and with an exasperated sigh too.
There's also the Baby P case to consider and the media witch hunt of the social workers there. I understand, although I don't have data, that it's really difficult to recruit and retain social workers now. Hardly surprising, really. The result, of course, is that more kids are potentially at risk now.
quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:quote:Originally posted by Hollygolightly:
My husband and I are trying to adopt and we are being put through the ringer. I appreciate that checks must be made, particularly where such an important issue is at stake, but the intrusive, explicit questioning is awful.
yes, it does get pretty explicit at times doesnt it?
Holly & BBBS I think you both deserve a big
& 
for all that you have been prepared to sacrifice in order to give a child in the care system a home. I admire you both greatly for it.quote:Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:quote:Originally posted by Hollygolightly:
My husband and I are trying to adopt and we are being put through the ringer. I appreciate that checks must be made, particularly where such an important issue is at stake, but the intrusive, explicit questioning is awful.
yes, it does get pretty explicit at times doesnt it?
Holly & BBBS I think you both deserve a big
Thank you so much Queen, I really appreciate that
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
the cctv issue you raise is a good one however as shown in this case its pointless, the fact is that since you couldnt have cameras in places like changing rooms, washrooms and toilets you are providing places where sexual abuse can take place (same applies for bullying at schools) and if cctv was installed in those places then you'd be open to all sorts of problems.
you are of course correct about one case too many problem but i think that in the case of most people when children are involved we all feel that one case is too many after all the government has used the same thing in its anti terror campaign to curtail all our freedoms ad sadly way too many people just accept it.
some of this goes back to my old freedom of speech arguement that if we actualy didnt react to paedophiles in the way we naturaly do but allowed them to openly discuss it we would have a better chance of being able to act to prevent abuse taking place by being more aware of who was involved with it instead of driving it underground and making it harder to detect.
I'd almost like to see the outrage if the government mandated putting CCTV in everyone's home with the excuse that "one sexual abuse case is one too many".
No, it's nice-sounding but it's essentially a slogan for action for its own sake, and each proposal needs to be considered on its own costs and benefits analysis. Also, if we are honest with ourselves and accept that zero risk is completely unrealistic then there does not necessarily need to be any action other than a prosecution in the case at hand.
I'm reminded of the Health & Safety drive whenever I hear that Something Must Be Done. It serves a purpose but, well, it can go too far as I'm sure most people will agree ... and with an exasperated sigh too.
There's also the Baby P case to consider and the media witch hunt of the social workers there. I understand, although I don't have data, that it's really difficult to recruit and retain social workers now. Hardly surprising, really. The result, of course, is that more kids are potentially at risk now.
Fair point Dan.
No-one would deny that this kind of abuse is absolutely sickening,but knee jerk reactions arent helpful.Difficult,tho, when the subject matter is so emotive.
Ultimately what it comes down to is balancing protecting people and giving them rights and liberties.Whilst everyone would agree that our children must be protected as far as is practically possible,we can't keep them out of the real world and its horrors forever.
One of the things to emerge in this thread is the fact many schools have tightened security protocols so tightly that even parent helpers aren't allowed to assist without police checks.Ridiculous?Maybe,but balance that against the fact that the perpetrator in this case was a mother.And perhaps thats what makes this crime so shocking.A mother is supposed to be the one person you can trust in the world.Sadly not.
So at what point do we make the compromise between liberty and protection??A child should have a right to explore and learn safely.Can we realistically make a world 100% safe?
quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
i have to go out now (but i look forward to continuing this discussion when i'm able to, i'm just glad it hasnt decended into a thread like the OMG version.
It's too important a subject, I feel, for that to happen.
hopefully so.
pity its getting drowned in "more important" stuff like evictions etc.
In all fairness,this is a BB forum!
quote:Originally posted by Mazzystar:quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
the cctv issue you raise is a good one however as shown in this case its pointless, the fact is that since you couldnt have cameras in places like changing rooms, washrooms and toilets you are providing places where sexual abuse can take place (same applies for bullying at schools) and if cctv was installed in those places then you'd be open to all sorts of problems.
you are of course correct about one case too many problem but i think that in the case of most people when children are involved we all feel that one case is too many after all the government has used the same thing in its anti terror campaign to curtail all our freedoms ad sadly way too many people just accept it.
some of this goes back to my old freedom of speech arguement that if we actualy didnt react to paedophiles in the way we naturaly do but allowed them to openly discuss it we would have a better chance of being able to act to prevent abuse taking place by being more aware of who was involved with it instead of driving it underground and making it harder to detect.
I'd almost like to see the outrage if the government mandated putting CCTV in everyone's home with the excuse that "one sexual abuse case is one too many".
No, it's nice-sounding but it's essentially a slogan for action for its own sake, and each proposal needs to be considered on its own costs and benefits analysis. Also, if we are honest with ourselves and accept that zero risk is completely unrealistic then there does not necessarily need to be any action other than a prosecution in the case at hand.
I'm reminded of the Health & Safety drive whenever I hear that Something Must Be Done. It serves a purpose but, well, it can go too far as I'm sure most people will agree ... and with an exasperated sigh too.
There's also the Baby P case to consider and the media witch hunt of the social workers there. I understand, although I don't have data, that it's really difficult to recruit and retain social workers now. Hardly surprising, really. The result, of course, is that more kids are potentially at risk now.
Fair point Dan.
No-one would deny that this kind of abuse is absolutely sickening,but knee jerk reactions arent helpful.Difficult,tho, when the subject matter is so emotive.
Ultimately what it comes down to is balancing protecting people and giving them rights and liberties.Whilst everyone would agree that our children must be protected as far as is practically possible,we can't keep them out of the real world and its horrors forever.
One of the things to emerge in this thread is the fact many schools have tightened security protocols so tightly that even parent helpers aren't allowed to assist without police checks.Ridiculous?Maybe,but balance that against the fact that the perpetrator in this case was a mother.And perhaps thats what makes this crime so shocking.A mother is supposed to be the one person you can trust in the world.Sadly not.
So at what point do we make the compromise between liberty and protection??A child should have a right to explore and learn safely.Can we realistically make a world 100% safe?
well there are some things that do go too far, if one of our kids wants to go and stay at a friends house (like children do) we have to give 2 weeks notice and then the whole family have to be checked out before he is allowed to stay, it might be for child protection but it realy hampers their social life and development when a non cared for child just has to rely on the parents judgement, likewise if they want friends to stay at ours overnight each child has to be checked out but you had the terrible case recently where a known abuser was place with a family who had young children and the carers were not informed or warned.
quote:Originally posted by Mazzystar:quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
the cctv issue you raise is a good one however as shown in this case its pointless, the fact is that since you couldnt have cameras in places like changing rooms, washrooms and toilets you are providing places where sexual abuse can take place (same applies for bullying at schools) and if cctv was installed in those places then you'd be open to all sorts of problems.
you are of course correct about one case too many problem but i think that in the case of most people when children are involved we all feel that one case is too many after all the government has used the same thing in its anti terror campaign to curtail all our freedoms ad sadly way too many people just accept it.
some of this goes back to my old freedom of speech arguement that if we actualy didnt react to paedophiles in the way we naturaly do but allowed them to openly discuss it we would have a better chance of being able to act to prevent abuse taking place by being more aware of who was involved with it instead of driving it underground and making it harder to detect.
I'd almost like to see the outrage if the government mandated putting CCTV in everyone's home with the excuse that "one sexual abuse case is one too many".
No, it's nice-sounding but it's essentially a slogan for action for its own sake, and each proposal needs to be considered on its own costs and benefits analysis. Also, if we are honest with ourselves and accept that zero risk is completely unrealistic then there does not necessarily need to be any action other than a prosecution in the case at hand.
I'm reminded of the Health & Safety drive whenever I hear that Something Must Be Done. It serves a purpose but, well, it can go too far as I'm sure most people will agree ... and with an exasperated sigh too.
There's also the Baby P case to consider and the media witch hunt of the social workers there. I understand, although I don't have data, that it's really difficult to recruit and retain social workers now. Hardly surprising, really. The result, of course, is that more kids are potentially at risk now.
Fair point Dan.
No-one would deny that this kind of abuse is absolutely sickening,but knee jerk reactions arent helpful.Difficult,tho, when the subject matter is so emotive.
Ultimately what it comes down to is balancing protecting people and giving them rights and liberties.Whilst everyone would agree that our children must be protected as far as is practically possible,we can't keep them out of the real world and its horrors forever.
One of the things to emerge in this thread is the fact many schools have tightened security protocols so tightly that even parent helpers aren't allowed to assist without police checks.Ridiculous?Maybe,but balance that against the fact that the perpetrator in this case was a mother.And perhaps thats what makes this crime so shocking.A mother is supposed to be the one person you can trust in the world.Sadly not.
So at what point do we make the compromise between liberty and protection??A child should have a right to explore and learn safely.Can we realistically make a world 100% safe?
no, not unless no-one is allowed to have kids until they have passed some sort of test and then have CCTV installed in all homes just in case...(after all that is where most abuse occurs)
quote:Originally posted by FGG Aka Crocodile Rock:quote:Originally posted by Mazzystar:quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
the cctv issue you raise is a good one however as shown in this case its pointless, the fact is that since you couldnt have cameras in places like changing rooms, washrooms and toilets you are providing places where sexual abuse can take place (same applies for bullying at schools) and if cctv was installed in those places then you'd be open to all sorts of problems.
you are of course correct about one case too many problem but i think that in the case of most people when children are involved we all feel that one case is too many after all the government has used the same thing in its anti terror campaign to curtail all our freedoms ad sadly way too many people just accept it.
some of this goes back to my old freedom of speech arguement that if we actualy didnt react to paedophiles in the way we naturaly do but allowed them to openly discuss it we would have a better chance of being able to act to prevent abuse taking place by being more aware of who was involved with it instead of driving it underground and making it harder to detect.
I'd almost like to see the outrage if the government mandated putting CCTV in everyone's home with the excuse that "one sexual abuse case is one too many".
No, it's nice-sounding but it's essentially a slogan for action for its own sake, and each proposal needs to be considered on its own costs and benefits analysis. Also, if we are honest with ourselves and accept that zero risk is completely unrealistic then there does not necessarily need to be any action other than a prosecution in the case at hand.
I'm reminded of the Health & Safety drive whenever I hear that Something Must Be Done. It serves a purpose but, well, it can go too far as I'm sure most people will agree ... and with an exasperated sigh too.
There's also the Baby P case to consider and the media witch hunt of the social workers there. I understand, although I don't have data, that it's really difficult to recruit and retain social workers now. Hardly surprising, really. The result, of course, is that more kids are potentially at risk now.
Fair point Dan.
No-one would deny that this kind of abuse is absolutely sickening,but knee jerk reactions arent helpful.Difficult,tho, when the subject matter is so emotive.
Ultimately what it comes down to is balancing protecting people and giving them rights and liberties.Whilst everyone would agree that our children must be protected as far as is practically possible,we can't keep them out of the real world and its horrors forever.
One of the things to emerge in this thread is the fact many schools have tightened security protocols so tightly that even parent helpers aren't allowed to assist without police checks.Ridiculous?Maybe,but balance that against the fact that the perpetrator in this case was a mother.And perhaps thats what makes this crime so shocking.A mother is supposed to be the one person you can trust in the world.Sadly not.
So at what point do we make the compromise between liberty and protection??A child should have a right to explore and learn safely.Can we realistically make a world 100% safe?
no, not unless no-one is allowed to have kids until they have passed some sort of test and then have CCTV installed in all homes just in case...(after all that is where most abuse occurs)
hey croc, welcome to an actual discussion thread
what you say is one way around the problem but i cant see all the innocent people being happy about that nor can i see there being too many takers for the adoption or fostering of all the chavs children who for many reasons would not pass the test.
Its very sad that so much trust has been lost.On one hand at schools we are saying we operate a revoving door and want to encourage parents to be part of a partnership,then when they offer to give lifts to the kids to help out,we have to do riskassessments, see all their documentation and do a CRB check.We'd be hung drawn and quartered if anything went wrong,yet we're criticised for not using common sense!
quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
hey croc, welcome to an actual discussion thread
The other one got a bit scary
quote:Originally posted by Mazzystar:
Its very sad that so much trust has been lost.On one hand at schools we are saying we operate a revoving door and want to encourage parents to be part of a partnership,then when they offer to give lifts to the kids to help out,we have to do riskassessments, see all their documentation and do a CRB check.We'd be hung drawn and quartered if anything went wrong,yet we're criticised for not using common sense!
that is so true, an all because we can no longer be trusted to make a fair judgement for fear of being sued if we were wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
hey croc, welcome to an actual discussion thread
The other one got a bit scary
LOL!
mr dan reckons storm has a soft spot for you
The thing is...you can never stop abuse, all you can do is make sure proper punishments and deterrents are in place as well as the police checks which I think is about as far as they can go...
quote:Originally posted by china:
mr dan reckons storm has a soft spot for you
I am well and truly damned
quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:
hey croc, welcome to an actual discussion thread
The other one got a bit scary
tbh the other was pretty tabloid right from the start, little thought, lots of mouth
there were a few who did try but i dont think most wanted to hear.
I think a lot of people in there were trying to morally outrage each other.
Wanting to burn her with no trial cos of the charge...what next...where would that end?
Sainsbury's being allowed to hang shoplifters?
Wanting to burn her with no trial cos of the charge...what next...where would that end?
Sainsbury's being allowed to hang shoplifters?
Just to be explicit, I wasn't suggesting we install CCTV everywhere and operate an Orwellian surveillance society. I was just trashing the idea that we must continually tighten things up and regulate and check every time something like this occurs until we get to zero incidents. Shit happens, and sometimes to kids. That's life, I'm afraid. Travel outside the normal holiday destinations and you very quickly realise that we have it very, very good in this country, especially with our current justice system, and things could be very different.