Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 29 October 2009, 23:46:01
-
"Parents have been banned from adventure playgrounds because a council says only adults with criminal records checks can be allowed near children.
All grown-ups have been excluded from two play areas in Watford, apart from a few council-vetted 'play facilitators' who will help youngsters."
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Anger_as_parents_banned_from_playground&in_article_id=759414&in_page_id=34
Pinch me, someone. I must be asleep and having a nightmare. ;) >:(
-
This world get more an more paranoid every day.....The motherinlaw got asked to delete a photo off her camera last week in blackpool cause it had another parents child in the photo!!! wtf i could not belive him he was quoting data protection act from start to finish and threating to call the police and have her arrested....In the end she deleted the photo`s and vowed not to take a camera with her again.....so wave bye bye to your holiday snaps folks they are out there..... :-X :-[
-
How bloody stupid is that you cant take ya kids to the park without having a crb check, what w4nker thought of that, jesus if they do that here it will be a p1$$ take
-
Do gooders again >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
Now I know where the Watford Gap is--Between somebodys ears.
eddie
-
Surely you know that there's a Paedophile behind every tree in Watford!
-
if you actually read the article, second last line:
"However, Ofsted said only people working with children needed to be checked, not all adults on the premises."
so what's the problem exactly? council missreads ofsted regs its not law - its human error.
non-story masquerading as news to sucker in outtraged from tumbridge wells and their ilk ;)
-
The trouble is bj there's too much 'human error' to be found in the burgeoning ranks of both national and local government and state sponsored quangos – in this case Ofsted
The default position, in terms of interpreting the plethora of regulations introduced by New Labour seems to be that if a directive isn't understood, the easiest thing to do, to cover as many asses as possible, is go for the blanket option where no definitive and accurate decision is made relative to the matter in hand.
This matter presently under discussion results, it seems, from an inappropriate decision having been made on the basis of someone reading but not fully understanding the intent of the directives. Why is allowed to happen?
This is yet another example of the shambles in our legislative structure flourishing as result of the gross and incompetent reign of New Labour.
-
The trouble is bj there's too much 'human error' to be found in the burgeoning ranks of both national and local government and state sponsored quangos – in this case Ofsted
The default position, in terms of interpreting the plethora of regulations introduced by New Labour seems to be that if a directive isn't understood, the easiest thing to do, to cover as many asses as possible, is go for the blanket option where no definitive and accurate decision is made relative to the matter in hand.
This matter presently under discussion results, it seems, from an inappropriate decision having been made on the basis of someone reading but not fully understanding the intent of the directives. Why is allowed to happen?
This is yet another example of the shambles in our legislative structure flourishing as result of the gross and incompetent reign of New Labour.
Zulu77 take heart from the Expenses Scandal.
Despite the perpetrators being the law-makers and despite them getting 'acceptance' from the Commons advisers on expenses, someone, from somewhere, has been able to retrospectively tell them that 'it has not been right'! What's more they are generally accepting it!
Where has this higher authority come from? Is it a relic of our Christian past? Or is it the perceived democratic public opinion? Hopefully it is nothing sinister like the power behind 'Political Correctness' (sinister in my view because I can't attribute it to anyone).
There is a chink of hope.
-
The trouble is bj there's too much 'human error' to be found in the burgeoning ranks of both national and local government and state sponsored quangos – in this case Ofsted
The default position, in terms of interpreting the plethora of regulations introduced by New Labour seems to be that if a directive isn't understood, the easiest thing to do, to cover as many asses as possible, is go for the blanket option where no definitive and accurate decision is made relative to the matter in hand.
This matter presently under discussion results, it seems, from an inappropriate decision having been made on the basis of someone reading but not fully understanding the intent of the directives. Why is allowed to happen?
This is yet another example of the shambles in our legislative structure flourishing as result of the gross and incompetent reign of New Labour.
Zulu77 take heart from the Expenses Scandal.
Despite the perpetrators being the law-makers and despite them getting 'acceptance' from the Commons advisers on expenses, someone, from somewhere, has been able to retrospectively tell them that 'it has not been right'! What's more they are generally accepting it!
Where has this higher authority come from? Is it a relic of our Christian past? Or is it the perceived democratic public opinion? Hopefully it is nothing sinister like the power behind 'Political Correctness' (sinister in my view because I can't attribute it to anyone).
There is a chink of hope.
. ...I hope to bathe in the light that may shine through that very chink Chris. :y
As to where the impetus for change has originated in relation to the Parliamentary Expenses issue, I'm unsure - but would hope that some members of the legislative establishment have taken note of the moral element in this sad affair and have come to realize that they work for the populace at large within this nation, and not for themselves.
-
The trouble is bj there's too much 'human error' to be found in the burgeoning ranks of both national and local government and state sponsored quangos – in this case Ofsted
The default position, in terms of interpreting the plethora of regulations introduced by New Labour seems to be that if a directive isn't understood, the easiest thing to do, to cover as many asses as possible, is go for the blanket option where no definitive and accurate decision is made relative to the matter in hand.
This matter presently under discussion results, it seems, from an inappropriate decision having been made on the basis of someone reading but not fully understanding the intent of the directives. Why is allowed to happen?
This is yet another example of the shambles in our legislative structure flourishing as result of the gross and incompetent reign of New Labour.
Zulu77 take heart from the Expenses Scandal.
Despite the perpetrators being the law-makers and despite them getting 'acceptance' from the Commons advisers on expenses, someone, from somewhere, has been able to retrospectively tell them that 'it has not been right'! What's more they are generally accepting it!
Where has this higher authority come from? Is it a relic of our Christian past? Or is it the perceived democratic public opinion? Hopefully it is nothing sinister like the power behind 'Political Correctness' (sinister in my view because I can't attribute it to anyone).
There is a chink of hope.
. ...I hope to bathe in the light that may shine through that very chink Chris. :y
As to where the impetus for change has originated in relation to the Parliamentary Expenses issue, I'm unsure - but would hope that some members of the legislative establishment have taken note of the moral element in this sad affair and have come to realize that they work for the populace at large within this nation, and not for themselves.
You won't need sun-tan lotion yet I fear!
-
The trouble is bj there's too much 'human error' to be found in the burgeoning ranks of both national and local government and state sponsored quangos – in this case Ofsted
The default position, in terms of interpreting the plethora of regulations introduced by New Labour seems to be that if a directive isn't understood, the easiest thing to do, to cover as many asses as possible, is go for the blanket option where no definitive and accurate decision is made relative to the matter in hand.
This matter presently under discussion results, it seems, from an inappropriate decision having been made on the basis of someone reading but not fully understanding the intent of the directives. Why is allowed to happen?
This is yet another example of the shambles in our legislative structure flourishing as result of the gross and incompetent reign of New Labour.
nearly always the case in every "Health & Safety Gone Mad" article - so much so that the H&S website offers us its myth of the month page :y
http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/index.htm
papers love this kind of thing - as we get near to Christmas, cue the "Xmas parties/trees/decorations banned by H&S" stories - absolute piffle based on urban myth or people not actually understanding the regs and, as you say, erring on the side of caution as is the usual default ass-covering exercise with anyone from the civil service in my experience :y
-
if you actually read the article, second last line:
"However, Ofsted said only people working with children needed to be checked, not all adults on the premises."
so what's the problem exactly? council missreads ofsted regs its not law - its human error.
non-story masquerading as news to sucker in outtraged from tumbridge wells and their ilk ;)
I say you...you dammned foreigner, get it correct!!!
Outraged, Tonbridge Wells!!!! >:(
-
The trouble is bj there's too much 'human error' to be found in the burgeoning ranks of both national and local government and state sponsored quangos – in this case Ofsted
The default position, in terms of interpreting the plethora of regulations introduced by New Labour seems to be that if a directive isn't understood, the easiest thing to do, to cover as many asses as possible, is go for the blanket option where no definitive and accurate decision is made relative to the matter in hand.
This matter presently under discussion results, it seems, from an inappropriate decision having been made on the basis of someone reading but not fully understanding the intent of the directives. Why is allowed to happen?
This is yet another example of the shambles in our legislative structure flourishing as result of the gross and incompetent reign of New Labour.
nearly always the case in every "Health & Safety Gone Mad" article - so much so that the H&S website offers us its myth of the month page :y
http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/index.htm
papers love this kind of thing - as we get near to Christmas, cue the "Xmas parties/trees/decorations banned by H&S" stories - absolute piffle based on urban myth or people not actually understanding the regs and, as you say, erring on the side of caution as is the usual default ass-covering exercise with anyone from the civil service in my experience :y
It's quite refreshing to see the amount of effort that the HSE are prepared to spend on putting the record straight.
Sad though, that the record needs to be put straight. Most of us acquire a good sense of what is safe through childhood experiences and, as with motoring itself, are far better equipped through carrying knowledge and understanding with us, than through legislation.
The crux of CRE/childcare is that individual carers who are isolated with a child (by design) should be CRE-checked. A public playground may be an opportunity for abuse, but it's hardly isolated.
-
"Parents have been banned from adventure playgrounds because a council says only adults with criminal records checks can be allowed near children.
All grown-ups have been excluded from two play areas in Watford, apart from a few council-vetted 'play facilitators' who will help youngsters."
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Anger_as_parents_banned_from_playground&in_article_id=759414&in_page_id=34
Pinch me, someone. I must be asleep and having a nightmare. ;) >:(
Some people seem to think that paedophilia is a modern phenomena.....never used to happen in my day.....some people will say.....total 'dangle berries' I say.....
For as long as there has been adults and children......there has been paedophiles.
I have just looked up the "age of sexual consent".....from the "good old days"
1275......set at 12 years for girls. :-/ :-/....then in the
Late sixteenth century........lowered to 10 years for girls :-/
Then we have big changes in Victorian England......age raised to 13 years in 1876. :-/ :-/........and then again to 16 years..(as it is today)...in 1885. :) :) :)
We must also remember ....that a poor ....12 year old Victorian girl with .....limited healthcare ......and a poor diet........probably looked like any average 8 or 9 year old would today. :-/ :-/ :-/
We should be grateful that paedophilia is now recognised.........but as Nickbat suggests .....we should not become too paranoid ......and see perverts at every turn.
-
What gets me is that the Mayor of Watford says that the council staff are "CRB checked and legit". How many times do I have to point out that a CRB check confers no guarantee of child safety...absolutely none.
Indeed, if employment references are fully investigated, it should be, to all intents and purposes, impossible for a convicted child molester to get a job involving child care. But they continue to imply that a CRB check means that someone is "legit" (the Mayor's words).
Would Ian Brady and Myra Hindley have passed a CRB check either before, or during the time, they committed those gruesome murders?
I think the answer says it all.
-
I think this all harks back to today's blame culture.
Used to be the case that anyone could do anything legal within reason. If someone with some responsibility decided that it was perhaps not a great idea for certain individuals to hang around in the park they'd have a quiet word and it's be sorted.
Nowadays we have the reverse: an @rse-covering culture where the default is that you can't do a damned thing unless some official has risk-assessed it and spotted a clause that covers his @rse if it all goes t*ts up.
So, they make up a stupid rule, get told it's above their pay grade and to stop being so silly, and there it is: @rse covered. >:(
Safety of kids doesn't even come into it, sadly, so it doesn't matter if a CRB check is worth the paper it's written on.
Kevin