bluey Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 you might have heard about the new "vetting and barring scheme" being introduced by big brother the government this october; if not - basically - ANYONE who works with school kids, be they visiting firemen, children's book authors, parents helping with school trips or school caretakers... will have to sign up to a database and pay £64 for the privilege. Parents who help out on school trips or accept foreign exchange students into their homes will have to register on a government database in order to prove they are not a danger to children. Within five years, more than 11 million people will be stored by the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) as part of the Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS), which launches in October and is intended to protect children from paedophiles. By November next year, it will be mandatory for all individuals who work with children to be registered. MPs who regularly visit schools in their constituencies, parents who allow foreign pupils to stay in their houses as part of school exchange programmes and builders who carry out work on school buildings during term time will all need to register, as the list includes anyone who comes into contact with children in a professional or voluntary capacity. They will have to register with the national database for a one-off fee of £64. Those who have already had a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check and are cleared to work with children will still have to sign up and pay. as a prospective teacher this makes me pretty angry!! i've already paid £20 to the police so they can check my ann-summers purchases. i've had an ENHANCED CRB check - that's the paperwork that the people running the VBS recommend if employers want a more thorough check of their employees! MORE THOROUGH! this article from the independent really sums it all up~ The new rules mean that millions of people who have jobs which involve indirect contact with children will have to be assessed in case they pose a risk. School janitors, cleaners and kitchen staff will have to pay the registration fee, as will electricians, plumbers and joiners if they are regularly employed by schools. Members of the fire, police and ambulance services who tour the country talking to pupils about issues such as road safety and sexual health will need to be vetted, as will members of the armed forces who give frequent careers talks and cadet instructors. The Home Office estimates that the database will hold the details of 11.3 million people within five years. Even if just half of the participants pay the £64 fee in this time, the Government will have raised about £360m in revenue. The scheme is being managed by the ISA, which was set up after the 2002 murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells by Ian Huntley, a college caretaker. The VBS has already provoked anger among people who are accustomed to visiting schools on a regular basis. Yesterday, The Independent reported that a group of respected British children's authors and illustrators intended to stop visiting schools in protest at the scheme. Philip Pullman, Anne Fine, Anthony Horowitz, Michael Morpurgo and Quentin Blake all said they objected to being registered on the database. Mr Pullman described the policy as "corrosive and poisonous to every kind of healthy social interaction", while Mr Horowitz said the £64 registration fee had "a nasty feeling of a stealth tax about it". David Lyscom, chief executive of the Independent Schools Council, which represents 1,280 schools and more than 500,000 children across the UK, said the VBS was a "knee-jerk reaction" to the issue of child protection which was "full of unintended consequences". He said it had been mishandled in the same way as ContactPoint, the government database which holds information on every child in England under the age of 18. ContactPoint was set up following Lord Laming's inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié, who was murdered by her guardians in 2000. "Our view is that this is another example of the Government identifying a problem of limited size and producing a global solution to deal with it, using a sledgehammer to crack a nut," he said. A Home Office spokesman said: "The UK already has one of the most advanced systems in the world for carrying out checks on all those who work in positions of trust with children and vulnerable adults. From October this year, the new VBS will ensure these regulations are even more rigorous." i understand people's anger at having to be vetted - the whole guilty-until-proven-innocent thing is a little insulting when all these people are doing is taking time out of their schedule to teach kids about literature or fire safety - in an assembly hall with at least a few other teachers in the room. like one of the authors interviewed said: how the hell would even the most cunning deviant be able to molest a child in a room full of other children AND adults?! plus! doesnt this kind of thing only serve to make parents more paranoid about pedophiles hiding in the bushes? will the little old lady at the sweet shop have to register too? she deals with kids. what about parents themselves? should social services get their act together a bit after all the baby-x cases recently so that abusive adults arent who the kids go HOME to? personally, i dont mind them checking whatever they need to check - but why the £64 fee? i have to PAY (even more money than i already have) to prove i'm not a paedo?? where's the protest petition?! sign me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haden Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Some guy came to the school I work at and did really crappy art then wanted to take pictures of the kids. Scary! But apart from him this is a bit unfair as most of the people who come in are great so boo to this law! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl619 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 This in my opinion is most definitely a stealth tax. By all means put people who come into schools on a register, but charge £64 for the privilege? Are they really saying that the animal man who used to visit my school is a threat? The animals were more dangerous .And, the police and firemen who visit the school do a good job, why charge them? I also fail to see how putting people who come into contact with kids is actually going to limit the number of child abuse cases when it's often the closest family and friends who in fact abuse kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Shit, the net gets tighter. I'll be honest, I'm surprised they haven't found me yet, my house is made of sweets after all. What do they check to confirm you're not a peado in this new thing? The only thing they can check for is if you've been caught for it before. Shouldn't that have been checked before they started work? I geniunely don't understand what a new check does differently to ones already in place. i've already paid £20 to the police so they can check my ann-summers purchases. Wait, what? What business is if of theirs what undercrackers you decide to wear? Surely Anne Summers don't sell anything even remotely peadophile-ey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluey Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 Wait, what? What business is if of theirs what undercrackers you decide to wear? Surely Anne Summers don't sell anything even remotely peadophile-ey? i was joking.. to some extent. what i'm saying is that i've already given the police my permission - and twenty quid - to paw through my internet records. and that doesnt bother me in the slightest - because i'm only into the regular porn. i'd love to know what exactly the new check consists of to warrant the extra £45... a survey? "Are you now, or have you ever been, a paedophile?" o yes o no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 i'd love to know what exactly the new check consists of to warrant the extra £45... a survey? "Are you now, or have you ever been, a paedophile?" o yes o no Is this boy sexy? o Yes o No o If he were wearing lingerie, perhaps When playing Cricket, do you prefer grass on the pitch? o Yes o No Do you want to be in my gang, my gang, my gang? o Yes o No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 -_-' *sigh* Christ, you'd think the government would be smarter than this. This HAS to be a stealth tax, it just has to be. I can't and won't for the love of God believe they'd be stupid enough to mean this seriously. How is this going to help even in the slightest? And a £64 fee? It's ridiculous, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Its the same for dentistry now! (since june 08) My sister has to pay about £100pa to just work. Its mental. I work in the nhs and I don't think I've ever had any vetting process! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Hang on...the people who are fully checked and employed to protect children (and the rest of us) have to pay a fee to tell children important safty tips. Like how to call the fire service if there's a fire, or know if an adult wants in their pants? The next thing: doctors won't be able to save kids lives unless they sign a hundred forms first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 That's right kids, any adult without being checked out is going to huuurrrt you! Fear kids, fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Since some people are actually stupid enough to come up with this idea, perhaps it is actually wise to fear adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyellowbloke Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 like one of the authors interviewed said: how the hell would even the most cunning deviant be able to molest a child in a room full of other children AND adults?! They can undress the kids with their eyes and use their imagination. The teachers should check to see if the guy speaking has a boner. You're right of course, this is a stupid and ill-thought out way of protecting kids which will only damage education. I think the only solution is to completely protect kids from the eeeevil adults is to seal them each in isolated air tight boxes at school and teach via a video screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 "Ok, so, you work with children, you need to sign here, here and here." "Great, I understand that there are policies in place to safeguard children." "That'll be 60 quid, please." "..." If there's an opportunity for money to be made, I can't say I'm surprised that this has come about. They may say that this is helping to safeguard children, but it's little more than a money-making scheme. Worst of all, if you NEED to sign up to this, then it's just easy money, since you can't say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris the great Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 well, im all for keeping kids safe, ya know, what with the huge over exposure to nonces in the media, but theres gotta be a limit i mean, even with all the checks in the world, whats stopping a previously unrecognised fiddler getting through? making people pay to get on a data base of non child molesters, its retarded, its like asking me to pay to prove that im not a murderer, utter bollocks. i get MPs want their floating duck islands, but they shoudlent make the tax payer foot the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolness Bears Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I'm out of a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McPhee Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Wait... When was the last time a Fireman visited a school to give a safety talk to then be found in the boys toilets bending little Johnny over a sink? Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Wait... When was the last time a Fireman visited a school to give a safety talk to then be found in the boys toilets bending little Johnny over a sink? Anyone? It would explain how ReZ was conceived, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris the great Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 alot of its common sense. if some one shows you a modle village and all the houses are shaped like penises, they are a peadophile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 alot of its common sense. if some one shows you a modle village and all the houses are shaped like penises, they are a peadophile. Well, it just shows that they like the penis. Maybe a bit too much. It doesn't mean that they're a paedophile, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris the great Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Well, it just shows that they like the penis. Maybe a bit too much. It doesn't mean that they're a paedophile, though. well, it dosent change the fact they have more geneticly in common with crabs then humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Is this boy sexy?o Yes o No o If he were wearing lingerie, perhaps When playing Cricket, do you prefer grass on the pitch? o Yes o No Do you want to be in my gang, my gang, my gang? o Yes o No haahahaahaahahaahahaahahahaha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 well, it dosent change the fact they have more geneticly in common with crabs then humans. I'm talking nonce-sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintendohnut Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Wait... I work in a library and have regular interactions with children who want to know if we have a Jaqueline Wilson book in, and yet I surely won't be told to sign up to this? At what point does is stop? Everyone has interaction with children at some point, so how far do they go? Asking the parents of a child to do it, just in case when they're changing nappies they see something they like? It's fucking ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyellowbloke Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Wait... I work in a library and have regular interactions with children who want to know if we have a Jaqueline Wilson book in, and yet I surely won't be told to sign up to this? At what point does is stop? Everyone has interaction with children at some point, so how far do they go? Asking the parents of a child to do it, just in case when they're changing nappies they see something they like? It's fucking ridiculous. I think you're allowed to interact with them, you're just not allowed to look/touch/speak to them in case you inadvertently molest them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintendohnut Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Yeah, I did that the other day, I was literally just sat there, looking up a book on the computer for a kid and then BAM! He was naked and my mouth was on his balls. Such an error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts