Ofsted has blown a hole in Home Office claims that deciding who needs to be vetted is a simple matter, after the education quango tarred parents who share childcare arrangements as "illegal childminders" and potential criminals. The issue came to light at the weekend, when the Daily Mail reported that Ofsted had made a surprise …
Should be a hanging offence
for operating illegal child 'minding'. Won't someone think of the children, lynch these criminals yobs.
I'd ignore the idiots at Ofsted. What jurisdiction do they have over two people having a private arrangement? What constitutes a 'reward' in this instance is purely their opinion.
Now, if they want to report it to the police, and assuming the CPS don't throw the case out for being a gross waste of time and money, we can test the definition of 'reward' in court. Until then, I don't give a fuck what these nannying (no pun intended) fucktards think.
On the other hand, getting a CRB check for two people who in all likelihood are already CRB checked (they work for the Filth, after all) and becoming registered childminders isn't going to be too much effort. Then they can pay each other the £240-odd per month that you can claim out of your gross salary for childcare. A little bit less money for Darling to spunk up against a wall can't be a bad thing.
What the fuck has happened to this country?
Why not have mandatory vetting for every single person over the age of 14? They could charge £100 a pop for it, and make several billion in tax oops I meant vetting fees. Maybe then they could change the law to make everyone hang their vetting papers on the wall in a prominent place, like they do with employers liability insurance certificates. Should be simple enough to "vet" the "vetting papers" of the parents who you are dropping little jimmy off at. Of course the beauty of this is that there would be no incentive/desire/reason for people to "fake" their new wall hangings, much like their is no incentive/desire/reason for people to try and remote scan the new passport chips from 30ft without anyone knowing.
Stop the world I want to get off
please let me wake up from this nightmare! I remember 1997, voting for a change, now I just want them all to go away and never come back. That means the Tories too.
It's all bollocks...
...and everyone knows it. Except it seems those people who make the law. Time for a change.
We need a new icon. Big Hairy ones...
So that's what they mean
Good on the government
These parents over the nation (mostly daily mail readers, of course) have been screaming for more security and THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
Well, now you got it. And you don't like it. And (being childless and not a babysitter) I sit and laugh at them.
Oh, I'm not on about the average parent who doesn't want kiddy fiddlers having jobs in schools - that's perfectly sensible - but the people actually campaigning for all of this, the databases, the vetting, CRB checks etc - well, ... you got what you asked for. Let me guess - you want that with /other/ people but not when it inconveniences you, eh?
Mind Harry Potter
Under these rules, it appears that Harry Potter will be liberated from his Muggle relatives somewhat early, eh?
so helping anyone is illegal..
unless you have the correct 'papers' citizen !!
god forbid that we actually help one another, without express state permission (and of course the appropriate payment and signing away more of your rights)....
or is that gordo forbid ?
it's all part of the 'big plan', which is to divide and conquer. these ridiculous regulations (are they actually LAW?) seek to isolate, punish and divide people. and are trying to make us all into criminals... all the better to control you with, my dear. (said the wolf to little red riding hood).
does our country and everything in it (including us), belong to 'the state' to do as they please with? is it right or acceptable?
refuse to be divided from your friends, and whimsically criminalised. say NO. get these clowns out of gvt.
"becoming registered childminders isn't going to be too much effort"
Ya think so...
My wife was a childminder...was because it wasn't worth the hassle of snap inspections, risk assessments and non-compliances for not having locks on the food cupboards.
Ofsted - who do they think they are?
Ofsted, a quasi-autonomous governmental organisation, was created originally to be the watchdog for standards in school education.
Who's idea was it to give it the power to snoop on families' child-minding arrangements?
Brave new Britain.
May I just point out the obvious by saying that this is the most pig-headed, insanely intrusive, and stupid, f%$*&@-up case of government interference yet?
What next? Get yourself vetted and seek permission from the government to even HAVE a kid??? Tell you what, why not just lock the whole population up right now - just in case!
On the beeb's coverage of this story is says that Ofsted had received a complaint about the illegal child minding. Who the hell would complain about something like that? Bloody nark.
One rule for them...
Couldn't agree more with RichyS - but I suppose the problem in this case is that the police officers couldn't risk a court case. I mean, surely anyone who was involved in creating or policing the law would be compelled to resign immediately if they were ever convicted of an offence. Oh, wait a minute...
Registered non-related Childminders
This is quite an interesting development. Assuming you can become registered then there's a nice tax avoidance scheme in this.
You can claim childcare costs for a registered childminder from your pre-tax salary. If you have a reciprocal arrangement with another childminder, this would mean each of you avoiding tax on the portion of your salary that you 'pay' the other.
You can also add childcare costs onto any child tax credits you claim, further increasing the amount of your money that you get out of the chancellor's greedy mitts.
For that reason alone, I expect the government to get themselves out of this as soon as practically possible.
I wouldn't be surprised if they further amend the law such that reciprocal childcare payments are counted as tax fraud. To be frank though not much would surprise me with this bunch.
As someone once told me...
a propos Queen's Regulations "Guidance to the wise but law to the fool"
Perhaps someone graphically gifted could offer an icon for a purblind, anencephalic civil servant/ minister attempting to blow his/her brains out with an unloaded banana pointing the wrong way.
However, I sense a tremendous business opportunity for providing out-sourced common-sense. Obviously government has none so it would be only sensible to... oh hang on, I think I see a problem....
I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth; banks are going bust; shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter; punks are running wild in the street, and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it.
We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat. And we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be!
We all know things are bad -- worse than bad -- they're crazy.
It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out any more. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we're living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, "Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone."
Well, I'm not going to leave you alone.
I want you to get mad!
I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot. I don't want you to write to your Congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street.
All I know is that first, you've got to get mad.
You've gotta say, "I'm a human being, goddammit! My life has value!"
So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell,
"I'm as mad as hell,
and I'm not going to take this anymore!!"
"An individual would only be exempt from this regulation if childcare took place for less than two hours in the day, fewer than 14 days a year, or only during the hours 6pm to 2am."
So as long as it isn't consistently taking tax money away from the chancellor, in other words? How are any of these exemptions cases where children are not likely to be in harms way, as opposed to being in harms way outside of these arbitrary exemptions assuming they are left with the same friend in each instance?
When I was out of work, I'd occasionally, certainly more than 2 hours, more than 14 times in a year, and outside the hours of 6pm to 2am, look after a friend's kids while she went into work, and in return she'd bring me a sausage roll from Gregg's when she came back - am I a lawbreaking master criminal too?
Maybe a spell in an overcrowded jail would teach me a lesson, eh?
Not AC, as I'd love to sue the bollocks off of OFSTED for being a bag of cocks, and Labour( if there are a set of bollocks between them!) for introducing such shoddily prepared legislation when I get acquitted in a test case.
Ofsted - As much help as a chocolate teapot
After having a falling out with our registered childminder we contacted Ofsted to make a complaint but were told......
We don't get involved with the Business aspect of your arrangements. We only get involved where there is a child safety issue. So as long as they don't hurt the child they can screw you for as much money as they can, and will.
So they don't care what monies are being handed over or extorted by childminders as long as the law is being upheld.
No moral obligation to the arrangement which they are supposed to oversee. You are told always use an Ofsted approved childminder for your own protection. It should say always use a ofsted approved childminder because they have been vetted!
No protection of parents implied
Hence the comment: Ofsted - As much help as a chocolate teapot
Who tipped off Ofsted?
It seems to be agreed that this was an informal arrangement between two sets of parents, so on the face of it, only the parents would have known about it. How did Ofsted discover it? Do they engage on random trawling operations, picking children of working parents at random and inquiring of their childcare arrangements? (If so, who do they ask?) Or did one of the PCs colleagues grass them up? (If so, why? Was it a sneaky attempt to point up the absurdity of the law, using someone else's career just in case it all went pear-shaped?) Or was a local childminder pissed off at the loss of potential business?
I don't think I like *any* of these possibilities. Can anyone think of others?
... before you are allowed to do anything that might result in the birth of a child. It's the next (logical) step...
Are useful for organisations - it's good for the boss of a nursery to have some check on the staff they employ.
Are pointless for individuals - I'd be happy leaving my daughter with any number of friends from church, I don't see any benefit in a CRB check.
If they weren't police officers and so I guess not really keen for run-ins of a legal nature (no pun intended), I think if I were those two parents I'd have been tempted to tell Ofsted where to fucking go, get their nose out of my own private affairs, and see what a court had to say (if it ever got that far).
I'm not generally minded to Daily Mailisms, but this really *IS* political correctness gone mad.
one child saved
Now I love all the wankers that pull out the "just one child saved means it's worth it", I'm willing to wager a lot more children would be saved if you banned cars/motorbikes, two reasons you wouldn't be able to take a child very far and more importantly you wouldn't have traffic accidents.
So if it saves just one child then it must be worth it?
Total State Control
What intrigues me is that it should be even known that these two parents had any private arrangements to share the load of childcare.
It also seems bizarre that a parent should be expected to be trained and make home modifications and all the rest to look after someone else's child but not their own. Logically that shows a failure to protect a parent's own child as much as someone else's, so the argument it's about protecting the kids doesn't hold water. Government is being culpably negligent in not giving all kids equal protection.
And it's ironic because it seems a lot of abuse occurs within the family and government seems unwilling to do anything to prevent that. The ultimate resolution is that everyone who intends to have children will have to be vetted to ensure it's safe to allow that - Welcome to Parenting of the Future.
Thank god we don't have 'joined-up thinking', because when we do and the State does the thinking for us, who knows where that will lead. With current totalitarian attitudes it won't be pretty.
We need laws to protect the .....
..... revenue streams.
If parents are having the gall to make up their own minds about who is a fit and proper person to be a childminder, rather than insisting on OFSTED-registered childminders, then OFSTED are being deprived of money that ought rightfully to be theirs!
Piracy, because that's what this amounts to.
New Laws for old?
Well they do appear to have managed to repeal one law, the Law of Unintended Consequences, in favour of the Law of Total Cock-up.
Clearly badly thought out, unexamined parliamentary edicts, (one can hardly call them laws in the traditional sense) shoved through by a part time bunch of snout filling parasites is producing the expected result, chaos.
How long before we all need to be vetted to stand in a bus queue, ride a bus or, horror of horrors ride in a car with ........... fill in the blank, but make it anything silly.
Let's be intelligent about this, it's a stupid law, and it's going to probably lead to some stupid court cases. But really, really, is it going to turn into an apocalypse of parents being arrested for looking after a neighbour's kid for a few hours? Of course it isn't, and for all the protesting, the law will still go through, and the next day, things will pretty much be the same. There's more important things going on, and things that have a slim possibility of being changed.
Paging the Paedofinder General...!
You're all potential kiddy fiddlers, you just haven't been caught yet!!
PS Wait until the Government's "joined up thinking" gets to the stage of "well, whilst we're vetting them, it would be a good idea to take their fingerprints and DNA and stick them on the database..."
What? So if a parent is not approved via the VBS (say because of an old offence, or even, on current guidelines, because of a groundless rumour) , then technically, your kids cannot hang out at their kids house for more than 2 hours a day on 14 days of the year??!
Hmm, well-thought out law indeed!
@Chris Redpath - Tax dodge
Your plan is flawed - while you might not pay tax on the cash you pay to your reciprocator, they would then pay tax on it as income. Secondly, when they pay you for minding their child, you would be liable for income tax on that. Net dodge - £0. And you'd be capped at £240-ish per month.
And you'd have to pay ~£100/year to remain registered.
And you'd probably have to pay for an enhanced CRB on yourself.
And pay for enhanced CRBs for anyone else at your house over the age of 16.
And pay for any modifications to your house to make it child-safe (as determined by Ofsted).
And pay for the mandatory paediatric first aid course prior to registration (a good idea to have anyway, though).
And pay for the mandatory qualification in childminding within 6 months of becoming registered.
I don't know if you have to pay for the pre-registration assessment course that you have to attend...
St. Guy Fawkes day
It's time for St. Guy Fawkes to be cannonized.
Gosh! I find it astonishing the number of people who "voted for change" in 1997 and failed to allow the small matter of what happened in the runup to 1979 cloud their judgement. You know, the last time before 1997 that the incompetants had their hands on the reins, catastrophically fucked up the economy and restorted to an orgy of legislative lunacy in an attempt to divert attention from the sodding great elephant in the room.
Took 'em a bit longer to prise the wheels off this time, as the glue had had a bit longer to set than usual, but they managed it eventually.
Funnily enough, Leopards still seem to be spotted too......
They are actually entitled to send the social services on you and take your kids away.
The current legislation allows them to do that.
After that you will have to prove yourself innocent and only then _POSSIBLY_ get them back. Sometimes you do not - just like that family in Ipswitch whose children were taken away for "abuse" due to repetitive fractures. It is now _KNOWN_ that they actually have hereditary early onset osteoporosis and none of them was abused. None the less they are still _NOT_ getting their children back.
It is not just the vetting act, it is 90% of the system which has been allowed to simplify their operation through "Guilty until proven innocent". H&S in schools, LEA, Ofsted, Social services - you name it. Every single one of them has gotten themselves at least 3-4 nice "levers" to use against any "unrepentant" middle class cittizen which refuses to fall in-line. Nearly all of them established during Vladimir Ilich Blair and Joseph Vissarionovich Brown's rule.
Which in turn means that none of the alternative m****uckers gets my vote until I see them put repelling _ALL_ of this insanity. Any law that violates the fundamental idea of Innocent until proven guilty should be repelled period.
The even more hilarious part of this is that ofsted was investigating these 2 police officers for effectively not having a police background check registered with them.
You would have thought they'd pick a better test case.
"What the fuck has happened to this country?"
Sufficient numbers of total morons (around 26%) voting in a heavily gerrymandered election (THREE TIMES ON THE TROT!) for Smiling Tony & Grouchy Gordon, that's what.
Sign an Ofsted Death Warrant
If you have the time ...
Crazy List Of Exceptions...
"An individual would only be exempt from this regulation if childcare took place for less than two hours in the day, fewer than 14 days a year, or only during the hours 6pm to 2am."
I can't take in the neighbours kids during the day or after school, but it's perfectly fine for me to have them round at night when they will be asleep leaving me free to have my wicked way with them, just so long as I wake them up and pack them off in a taxi before 2am?
V for Vendetta
It's becoming scarily real.
According to the original article I read on AP or Reuters, it was a neighbour that shopped one of the coppers. I'm presuming they probably had an argument at some point and it's an easy way to get back at them.
Does anyone want to help me build a space ship so we can piss off to Andromeda or somewhere else suitably far away from this god forsaken planet?
We might need a cryogenics expert too, and I'll be vetting everyone just to make sure no politicians get on board, peados can come with us, because we'll be slingshotting Sol and the airlock system in the back will have a slight fault.
Step forward, Secretary of State
I've read the act. Section 33-1 seems to be the problem. Section 33-2 seems to be the solution. The Secretary of State can issue an order clearing up the whole mess in one fell swoop.
@ By Shakje - But really, really, is it going to turn into an apocalypse of parents being arrested
The potential danger is of course is the police stopping people in the street with more than one child and asking can I inspect your papers please. You have 3 children there, are they yours, could I inspect your barcode please.
Excuse me sir. Your car was spotted (by a modified speed camera) with more than 1 child in the back.
Are you vetted to carry other peoples children
If the law exists then the police will use it.
Then it will be accept a caution or visit court to argue about stupid laws.
What would you choose?
I once knew somebody that was prosecuted for 'Not locking their car in a public place' The Police will use every law they have. Stupid or not!
Can I have an icon for we are all DOOMED!
re: tax avoidance
scheme wouldnt work - or at least would be tax neutral - as you'd have to pay inome tax on the money you received. And think of the paperwork...
Ofsted double bluff
What are the chances of the Ofsted boys knowing this legislation is a load of bollocks and only raising this to demonstrate the fact?
If that's true then they are doing a blinding job!
I am a parent I decide who looks after my kids. If I am wanting a child minder who I don't know and will pay then fair enough that there are some controls and some basic checks. I am not going to demand that all the parents of my childens friends get CRB'ed or registered as child minders that is just ridiculous
just the way to encourage the growth of communties, stamp out any thought of trusting anyone on your own judgement, trust no-one not even yourself !
community bad not created by Gov policy
bad community bad
this isn't political correctness gone mad this is just mad,
@richyS good idea I might suggest that to my wife to circulate at the school gate !
"Gosh! I find it astonishing the number of people who "voted for change" in 1997 and failed to allow the small matter of what happened in the runup to 1979 cloud their judgement. You know, the last time before 1997 that the incompetants had their hands on the reins, catastrophically fucked up the economy and restorted to an orgy of legislative lunacy in an attempt to divert attention from the sodding great elephant in the room."
Erm, it was the Conservative government that put the policies in place that caused the Winter of Discontent.
The Tories couldn't believe their luck when they lost the election as it meant they dodged the shit storm that followed.
No party could have survived it, the Tories just managed to get out of the way before it landed on Labour.
What is wrong with the Brits?
how is it possible that you are taking all this crap?
A friend of mine who used to work in London left London because he was complaining about the cameras, obnoxious and abussive police....I did not quite believe it but the more I read about these things the more I get scared that people actually take it!!! Will they take it in my own country?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse (especially for police officers who should know better).
Lock them up and throw away the key.
I can see an upside...
The police get unwarranted and unnecessary intrusions in to their harmless private business.
Perhaps they will pester photographers less now?
Bring on the revoliution
Storm whitehall and chuck'em all on the streets. The goverment can try and use the rozzers to stop the revolution but there a law un-to 'em selves now-a-days so would just hide in there stations beating any inoccennt people that happen to be walking past and the army will not help them as they know its the public on there side and not the boys club in westminster that couldn't give a sh*t about our boys in fatigues.
Crown old William and lets give a monach a go again can't be worst than the bunch of self serving professional politicos we have now, was trying to think of the last positive thing any goverment did for this country as even the millenium celebrations they arraged arrived 2-3 years late and thats the best i could think of a dome for the millenium?
- +Comment Anti-Facebook Ello: Here's why we're still in beta. SPAMGASM!
- Analysis Windows 10: One for the suits, right Microsoft? Or so one THOUGHT
- Vid+Pics Microsoft WINDOWS 10: Seven ATE Nine. Or Eight did really
- Xbox hackers snared US ARMY APACHE GUNSHIP ware - Feds
- George Clooney, WikiLeaks' lawyer wife hand out burner phones to wedding guests