Headlines from Slashdot
45% Voted 'To be overall better for me than was 2009.' for 'As 2010 approaches, I expect the next year ...'
UK Authorities Ban 'Lonely' People From Working With ChildrenComments:34
Posted by
samzenpus
on Fri Sep 11, 2009 01:32 PM
from the only-the-lonely-know-this-feelin-aint-right dept.
from the only-the-lonely-know-this-feelin-aint-right dept.
A UK government organization, The Independent Safeguarding Authority, has started a new anti-paedophile database that takes into account lifestyles, relationships and beliefs when assessing the backgrounds of applicants, instead of just the usual criminal record check. The new guidelines allow the agency to consider unproven allegations made in newspaper reports, allegations from members of the public, as well as monitoring internet chatrooms and websites such as Facebook for evidence to use against applicants. Anyone judged to be a danger because of things like having no friends, or having a complicated private life, is banned from working with children, the homeless, or the elderly.
Comments
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Why do seagulls live near the sea? 'Cause if they lived near the bay,
they'd be called baygulls.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Why prevent them from working with children? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to understand that this was brought into place after Ian Huntley, who was a socially awkward person about whom there were several such unproven allegations, raped and killed two kids while working at the school they attended. This is specifically designed as a measure that would have prevented him from doing this.
Re:Why prevent them from working with children? (Score:4, Informative)
Since this is in Idle and only three poeple are gonna read it I can't be bothered to find a reference, but I read an interview a while ago with a head teacher who was well liked and generally respected - that is, until someone made an allegation of sexual indecency or some such against him. They later admitted it was a complete fabrication, and so the guy went to court to have the whole thing wiped from his record so he could work with kids again. The judge basically said that it was clear he was innocent, the allegations had made no sense, there were witnesses who saw them in different places at the time it was meant to have happened etcetera, but that innocence has nothing to do with it. The law says that suspicions must be logged, and that means that any school that hired him would be liable to all sorts of lawyering, and probably lose its liability insurance and stuff.
Fascinating extra fact: children (and adults, for that matter) are much more likely to be sexually assaulted, kidnapped and murdered by close relatives or family friends than random loners. By the logic most people seem to use these days, that means children should be removed from their parents at birth, and rotated between foster carers every fortnight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are they SURE of that? I am guessing that is more likely that those who are close and do it, likely to be caught. OTH, a total stranger could get by with it. I am thinking Jon Bonnet Ramsey as well as possibly that British couple in Spain (sad for all). I am guessing that it was a stranger that did these actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they are very, very sure of that - it isn't a 49/51 split, it's a 90/10 thing. Also, it's just logical - if you want to have sex with a girl, you try to go to the same places, make friends with with her friends and so on. If you want to have sex with a child, marry their single mother, make friends with their parents, etc.
If by "that British couple in Spain" you mean the parents of Madeleine McCann, you are talking about people who should have lost their daughter - just to the authorities, not the reap
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing to understand about it. It's equivalent to saying that schools shouldn't have janitors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Understood. In light of that, I suggest several other metrics that will be equally valuable:
90% of all serial killers are male. So males are disqualified.
84% of serial killers are caucasian, so none of them.
100% of child abusers have had contact with children, so ban anyone who has ever had contact with children.
Given that, taking on the identity of a non-white female who has never had contact with a child would be the perfect cover. Nobody would ever suspect such a person of being a serial killing child ab
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda of like pre-crime screening? You cannot do things now because you MIGHT do something.
Man..I'm glad I'm getting older and will be gone before this progresses to what I foresee as being a very scary reality in the coming future.
Re: (Score:1)
The sad thing is that loners generally tend to leave people alone, while social people tend to bully, date rape, stalk, groupthink, and conspire to deny people employment who are different from themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I have to understand that? Is it relevant somehow? I mean, I don't know anyone with a time machine...
Re: (Score:2)
Premise 2: Ian Huntley was a child-killer
Conclusion: Socially awkward people are child-killers.
Logic 101, anybody?
Re: (Score:2)
Premise 1: Ian Huntley was a socially awkward person. Premise 2: Ian Huntley was a child-killer Conclusion: Socially awkward people are child-killers. Logic 101, anybody?
If he was breast-fed, then... breast-fed people are child-killers.
Um... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The custodians at various schools I attended were always some of the kindest, wisest folks around.
Re: (Score:1)
By "people skills" I think he meant people who aren't able, or morally liable, to sell people a bill of goods on their employment records or resumes, though I suspect "janitors" who work in schools would probably need to go through this "vetting" process as well. It's not really about "pedophilia". Britain's democratic and civil decline started before the think-of-the-children hype. If you believe this is about
Re: (Score:2)
Par for the course. (Score:1)
If you want to impose anything that has no logic to it or infringes basic human rights all you have to do is claim it is "for the children" and you get a free pass.
Read original newspaper article with caution... (Score:3, Informative)
For non UK readers, you need to be a little cautious with this typical slashdot attention grabbing headline. The newspaper quoted is the right-wing Daily Telegraph often referred to as the newspaper of the Tory (Conservative) Party, the party in opposition. It will generally pick a fight with any legislation put up by the current nominally left wing government. It's probably worth reading the article carefully and picking out the "could"'s and "maybe"'s and other similar phrases. So when they talk about subjective evidence maybe being used, you have to bear in mind this is what judges do in legal cases anyway.
The irony being noted in the UK about the media cries against this legislation (further checking of people who might work with children) is that it came about partly because the very same newspapers made a lot of noise a few years ago when a couple of children were tragically killed by an unstable person who had a job working with children and hadn't been identified by the vetting processes at the time. The media shouted loudly that "something should be done" and "more checks need to be put in place to stop this happening again". And now the government has agreed and proposed for more checks, the same papers are crying "nanny state, too much bureaucracy!". Ironic.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that all of the commentators on the BBC HYS (Have Your Say) website must be Tory voters then. I waded through 14 pages of opposition to this legislation before I came across a post supporting it. Personally I think it is insane bureaucracy that is going to raise 11.3 Million x £64 or about $500M and employ 2000 people. It also ensures that the pool of citizen volunteers who interact with children will disappear leaving only State services - which is obviously just what the loony socialists in
Re: (Score:1)
Good story number one Government not doing enough to protect our children
Good story number two Overbearing government puts red tape obstacle in path of those working with children
I feel that society is now becoming paranoid about risks to children, but it is not the government that causes this, in fact I believe that it is a result of the magnification effect of salacious reporting in the media.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a while since the last big, juicy pedophile headline, and I'll bet that infuriates the blocklieters that support this legislation no end. Their last major hurrah was Madeleine McCann and that went so overboard that I think the public has
Gordon Brown banned as well (Score:2)
Obviously he leads a complicated lifestyle.
He looks a bit freaky (have you seen the way he smiles?), and that one blind eye is bound to be caused by someone emptying a can of maze into it.
He has no friends and is less popular than Neville Chamberlain [wikipedia.org] was at the beginning of World War 2.
Compatible personality types for child care (Score:1)
According to the article, if you are a morally upright and responsible person then you will never be hired by those organizations legally required to screen people for "pedophilia".
On the other hand, they (seem to) value "average" and successful personality types;
- People who are sycophants
- People who gossip and spread rumors (i.e. people who socialize)
- People who are constantly exposed to groupthink and value it as a social good
- People who accept witch hunts as a normalizing part of society
- People who
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that people who generally tend to get arrested for having sex with children also tend to be very sociable.
I am not sure that this is true, but the loners go for attacks like bundling kids off the streat into the back of vans, not the sort of thing this vetting would have any affect on. Certainly the ones that do infiltrate positions of trust are mostly sociable.
Re: (Score:1)
but the loners go for attacks like bundling kids off the streat into the back of vans
I've read this statistic more than once that rapists (whether their interest is children or not, tend to be social. It certainly fits in with the casual observations that I've made from news stories.) Some of the most heinous and sadistic killers often have a wife and kids and are pillars of their community; the type of people who would easily get jobs as police officers, day care workers, etc. Though it's odd, I never tend to trust people who smile a lot because I've always found these people to be dishone
Wow.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, good thing the US don't do anything crazy either
Re: (Score:2)