Well, it looks like the nanny state has finally come to this. Maybe it’s needed in this world. ??

 

1. Peiper,

   I do not believe that child abuse is any more prevalent now than in the past. I think that it’s just being, not just reported more, but hyped by the socialist media to further the socialist agenda.

   This is a case in point.

   Any formal agreement to ferry youngsters to and from the likes of Scouts, dance classes or local football matches, even if only once a month, will fall under the Government’s new Vetting and Barring Scheme.

   It means anyone who fails to register and have their backgrounds checked faces a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record.

   Parents who help children read in class or those who host foreign pupils as part of school exchange trips will also have to be vetted by the new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) and undergo criminal record checks.

   First, would someone define ‘formal agreement’ for me? Is it a ‘formal agreement’ when so-and-so has to work late and calls me to take his/her son/daughter/litter to the church function?

   If a local veteran, (I happen to have fond memories of this sort of WW2 vet…) wants to sponsor our high school wargamers club by letting us take over his garage for the summer, is he automatically a child abuser?

   Admittedly, this is in Britain. The sad slide to oblivion is accelerating. Britain, the land that first gave us the Magna Carta, is now so Frenchified that you are guilty, not just until you prove yourself innocent, you have to prove you are innocent BEFORE any charges are laid against you!

   Posted by Christopher       09/12/2009  at  09:15 PM  



2. Yeah, I think you’re right about more of it being reported in today’s world. More of it is also exposed where in my day heck, even at age 15 I’d never heard the term, child abuse.
   But I don’t think it’s being hyped due to a socialist agenda. I think it’s become an open sore that’s impossible to ignore anymore. Case of poor Baby P is a case in point. And a very serious one. No newspaper right or left could ignore that one.

   Actually, the surprise is that Britain could use a little bit of what the French have. Yeah I know. Surprise huh?  In many ways Sarko is trying and the French, even those not on the far right, are getting louder in their dismay. They have faults and problems and pol.correctness BUT ... not to the extent (I do not believe) that the Brits do. And they refuse to play by ALL the rules their masters invoke.

   There’s quite a number here who do not approve of this new tactic at all and many are saying they will no longer volunteer. Especially as the govt. wants ppl to pay for the vetting.  Agreements between neighbors don’t fall into this ruling tho. That is, if you ask your neighbor to take your kid to a game because for some reason you can’t make it.
   As in your example above.  But again you’re correct and I love that line,
   

   you have to prove you are innocent BEFORE any charges are laid against you!

   coz that’s how it seems to many over here.

   The labor govt. has much to answer for but will never be brought to book for all the harm they have done in the holy names of diversity, human rights,civil rights,multi-culture etc.  My wife is normally not a ranting type person, one in the family is enough. But mention the Labour Party and she’s off to the races citing chapter and verse of all the crimes done to her country by “those brainless twits.” She doesn’t cuss but I know what she’s thinking.

   Moms are strung out on drugs and dads?  Who knows where they are half the time and often a woman doesn’t even know who the father is, BUT ... they keep collecting benefits week after week, child after child.

   Posted by peiper       09/13/2009  at  03:14 AM  



3. Agreements between neighbors don’t fall into this ruling tho.

   You mean, not yet…

   But this is a socialist agenda. Socialists create crises so as to advance their command-and-control socialist agenda. It’s happening right before our eyes with the administration of LOTUS B. Hussein Obama. (LOTUS: Liar-in-chief Of The U.S.) He’s taking a few health insurance personal problems and trying to make them a national crisis. Your personal problems are NOT a national crisis.

   This is the same mind-set that resulted in Pres. Clinton incinerating 80+ men, women, AND children at Waco, TX. Better to kill the children than to actually find out if they were abused. David Koresh may have been a weirdo, but the Feds could have picked him up anytime he went jogging.

   Oh, wait, no the Feds couldn’t. ‘Child abuse’, which is an undefined term, isn’t a Federal offense. But, if we go in to ‘protect the children’, we can incinerate them with impunity.
   

   Moms are strung out on drugs and dads?

   Peiper, I’m possibly going out on a limb, but I’m betting anytime you find a mom on drugs and dads?… you will find a government welfare program that supports such behavior. Yet another crisis, created by government, for the purpose of creating more government.

   Posted by Christopher       09/13/2009  at  03:49 AM  



4. But again you’re correct and I love that line,

   you have to prove you are innocent BEFORE any charges are laid against you!

   I meant to comment on this too. Sorry, got carried away.

   I was thinking of Kafka’s ‘The Trial’ when I wrote that. Imagine trying to defend yourself against charges that haven’t been laid against you.

   FYI, here’s the Wikipedia condensed version:

   The Trial (German: Der Prozess) is a novel by Franz Kafka, first published in 1925. One of Kafka’s best-known works, it tells the story of a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime never revealed either to him or the reader.

   I suppose charges were laid. We just never find out what they were.

   Posted by Christopher       09/13/2009  at  03:57 AM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.