Paedo Check

wot no credit check?

From what I understand, the checks on the suspect will be thorough, but there will be no check on the motives of the person requesting the check. (It will be "based on trust". So lazy journalists will have an alternative to rooting through the dustbins of celebs - they will have the dirt dished for them!

I'm not in favour of abusing children. But all this craziness in the last couple of years has made me think of that Brass Eye, you know, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRZo8CHsgp8 Sometimes I wonder if London Tonight shouldn't just show a panicked mob running through the streets screaming "THE PAEDOS ARE COMING! THE PAEDOS ARE COMING!" and have done with it. I agree that the whole thing should be managed, but the scaremongering needs to stop. The Mirror or the Sun the other day led with "Paedos to be chemically castrated: Sex beasts face procedure to stop their perverse ways" or something. It made me laugh. The thing is, child abuse is typically within the family. There aren't that many playground-lurkers. Mr Broom the caretaker doesn't wank off to school security videos of your child. I'd recommend an "ex-check" for new partners. All ex's should be almost, but not quite, as cool as you are.

well I'm a full-time single dad (my ex gets to see our daughter for two days every two weeks) and my ex has just met a 'new man'. Little did I know that my ex and my daughter have been staying at his house during contact - and my ex has only known the man for six weeks. Not only that but my ex left it to my daughter (who is 4) to tell me about the situation. Speaking to my solicitor, she said that I have a right to know who he is, where he lives, and his telephone number (in case of emergencies). I've also stressed that, as a reponsible father, I do not want my daughter to be staying at the man's house. I welcome the recommendations for single mums and dads to know who their children may be spending unsupervised time with (male OR female) - including info on nursery/school teachers AND occasional helpers - who don't seem to be checked atall by the schools (this includes day-trip helpers and such). Including family members!! The paedo issue doesn't bother me as much (because it's so rare) as the thought of another adult (possibly) having a future psychological influence on my girl's life and attitude. A damned lot of damage can be caused to child in other, less detectable ways, too. I went as a helper during a nursery day trip at xmas. There were 2 staff and 4 parent helpers; I was the only male. I was put in charge of my daughter and another boy. We were forever in and out of the toilets doing pee runs - supervising the kids - the staff had no idea where everyone was because it was such a big place. None of the parent helpers were checked. Just because a person has a child, it doesn't automatically guarantee that they're sound with kids. As the report findings make clear: 90-ish percent of abuse comes from within the family or by people outside the family who are trusted. When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

That's interesting Yan - I can't believe the nursery would be that lax. Last year, I was a driver for a secondary school trip (to a Time Team dig), and I had to be checked out, even though I personally knew all the teachers that were going (and am even married to one of them)

Enzo... perhaps using a caretaker as an example wasnt the best choice. I think it's technically a good idea, though no doubt will be abused (sorry)... The school my children go to wont let you assist on a trip until you've been police checked. I would've thought that any responsible nursery/school would do that - I wouldn't want my kids wandering into the loo with anyone except me or a teacher.

why doesn't it work the other way round? Why can't a bloke check out his new girlfriend?

I should amend the post I made above to "me or their dad or a teacher" ... and I think my dads a pretty safe bet as he never abused me. Reckless, fair enough - though female abusers are very few and far between, they certainly exist.

Fair comment Liana. In my defence, I was actually thinking about Groundskeeper Willy from an ep of the Simpsons. Not very well considered on my part...

I'm a bit dubious about the practicalities of this. The professional CRB checks can take anything from a few weeks to several months, depending on whether it's the beginning of the school year etc. Unless the government is paying for a lot more capacity in the system, then it's going to be difficult to provide this service quickly for lots of people.

I'm dubious too. From what someone was saying on the beeb news earlier, it's pulled off the computer and handed over, as the woman signs a piece of paper promising to not tell anyone else. Yeah. Right. Sounds like yet another badly thought out, ill conceived scheme. Much like ID card, CSA and ASBO fiascos.

What I don't get about all this is what people are supposed to DO with this information. They can't tell anyone, they can't really do anything. What if, for example, a mother employs a tutor to top up her child's schoolwork, then recommends the tutor to a friend. What if one of those two mothers find out that the tutor is a perv; they withdraw their child, obviously. AND WHAT DO THEY SAY TO THEIR FRIEND? "I know your child is at risk, but I've promised some faceless beurocrat that I'll keep quiet." I doubt it. The system can ONLY be abused.

"won't the motive of the person requesting the check be rather taken as read ..." Ivory... Yes, I fear that the motive WILL be taken as read - and never questioned. While I wholeheartedly agree it's a good thing that predatory paedophiles are discovered before they strike, I have to feel trepidation that just ANYONE can phone up and ask for intimate information about anyone they like, and not have to justify their request. It will encourage vindictive fishing. Again - I think predatory paedophiles need to be stopped, but they are rare. Most people on "the register" are NOT dangerous people: they are flashers, porn barons and buggerers. The average mother does not need to be worried about this. This facility seems completely out of kilter with reality, in my opinion.

Hmm – I don’t know. Apart from database mix-ups, I can’t think of an instance when a person who was listed on such a file wouldn’t be of concern. Equally, I doubt whether I would’ve felt anymore sympathy for Gary Glitter had he been caught out by a tabloid journo abusing such a system rather than some bloke in a computer repair shop. The huge majority of paedophiles aren’t likely to be on file anyway. They’re usually family members and rarely brought to book because of it. Obviously the mob with torches thing has to be avoided, but these searches would be done on a name by name basis, not a ‘who’s a perv in our postcode’ one. Regarding your scenario 4G, I’d hope a whisper in the ear on a need to know basis wouldn’t be penalised whereas a letter to the local rag would. But as per usual, I doubt that that much thought has been put into the potential consequences. I read a staggering figure recently about how much new legislation had been passed in the last ten years. As Liana says, most of it rushed and flawed but it all made good copy at the time. ~ www.fabulousmother.com

Moral dilemma over this one. I welcome anything that may possibly have the potential to reduce the number of cases of child abuse, but on the other hand I'm very much into personal privacy etc. And the system is begging to be abused, not just in the ways mentioned above, but where's the cut-off point? When is a person a perv or not-a-perv? An 18 year old finding a 15 year old attractive? A 25 year finding them attractive? A 40 year old? A person's reputation can be irrecovably scarred by being labelled a "paedo," but is it better to have a few people mis-labelled if it reduces the risk of child abuse? pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Exactly right, Peps. The example I had in my head when I was writing the above was that when I was growing up, a lad of 18 in my street was arrested because he "just happened" to be bringing in the milk with an open dressing gown just as the 14-year-old paper girl was delivering the paper. Now I'm pretty sure the timing of his collecting the bottles was no accident, and we all agree that it is behaviour that needs to be nipped in the bud, but you also have to think that the lad was eighteen - still in the throws of adolescence - so he was probably experiencing emotional and physical feelings he was trying to come to terms with (we all have to do that, in our own way). Okay, his choice of action was ill-advised (to say the least!), but I can imagine he's now grown out of this stage, and regrets the events terribly. Should he be on a list and "outed" for things that happened twenty years ago in his youth?

Anyway, I'm not going to comment on this thread any more, because I'm increasingly worried that I sound like I "protesteth too much"...