Should be a hanging offence
for operating illegal child 'minding'. Won't someone think of the children, lynch these criminals yobs.
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 …
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.
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?
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.
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!
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...
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
..... 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.
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.
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!
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...
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.
"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?
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.
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!
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.
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?
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?
Ofsted have no problems with schools run by religious maniacs and the shocking standard of [pick any or all of the following] literacy, numeracy, basic science, physical education, history, geography or languages; but woe betide anyone trying to do some babysitting.
Is it possible to pin down the actual date this country became a dystopian joke?
<<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.>>
Gerlad Scarfe springs to mind. Oh, I think he's already done it.
Ok, I'm usually against this sort of thing (tm), but I kind of think that Offstead are in the right here. Each of these mothers is spending a large amount of time with a child and they are not registered child minders. The arrangement is reciprocal as they are both job sharing each other's job and then child minding the other half of the time, so they are acting as professional child minders for half the time. Could offstead ignore any other part time child minders? I think not.
What would happen if the children in question were kids of two crack addicted prostitutes (extreme and unlikely example to make a point) who had a similar reciprocal arrangement? I can't help thinking the lots of people would have something to say about that, expecially if some harm came to one of the children.
To sum up: Has child protection law gone too far? Probably, yes.
Is this an example of it going too far? I don't think so.
Should they be locked up and the key thrown away? No.
The nark who reported the two women to OFSTED was a neighbour of one of them. This person is a busy body of the highest order and probably saw the two women dropping of and picking up their kids regularly since the two had been carrying on this arrangement for quite some time. They then must have had some issue with one of the women to actually look up the law (it's not an obvious issue) and report them to OFSTED. It might even be the case that the person is a employee of OFSTED.
Just yesterday I was saying to a friend that the problem with the CRB checks is that HM.gov have explicitly excluded parents and family friends from the list, the first people you'd be checking if the project was genuinely aimed at preventing child abuse (and, for the record, actually stood a chance of having the stated effect, which it doesn't). However, even the politicians realised that that might be a step too far. Seems like Ofsted have found a way of plugging the gap.
Should be interesting when they notice that 100% of child abuse cases involve children :-o
The Margaret "Air Brushed Out of History" Thatcher once exclaimed that there was no such thing as society.
Now, under NuLab it comes to pass, as the volunteers who do so much to make all our communities work stop volunteering and tell the CRB et al to go forth and multiply.
On second thoughts we don't want any more of the bastards, so no multiplying. Just FOAD.
However those 2 crack addicted prostitutes would probably live in the same house, and so it would all be legal. Hell if the to ladies had swapped door keys, and did the baby sitting at each others house, it would be legal.
It's only because they were baby sitting at their own homes that they're in trouble.
that all over the country people are shagging each other left right and centre with no CRB disclosure or proper understanding of safeguarding. Some of these people then go on to become pregnant and read children, which involves intense and frequent contact with a child in an unmonitored environment (the home).
Maternity ward staff must ensure parents produce a CRB disclsure before they are allowed to take their baby home.
There's no knowing what might be going on behind closed doors.
For the sake of the children, any mother would surely agree maternity staff ensure she and her partner are checked out as fit to parent
"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?"
It might, yes. For a while now there have been highly visible posters around these parts encouraging citizens to dobb each other in for precisely this and publicising the hotline number for doing so. I kid you not.
It would seem pretty fucking pointless to do that and then not bother to follow up with enforcement, particularly as every report leads to a "child at risk" scenario (in the minds of the hysterical righteous, not in reality). Expect to hear more stories like this.
"and for all the protesting, the law will still go through"
That's true at least. The law HAS gone through, it is part of the Childcare Act 2006. And no, nobody listened to the protests.
"and the next day, things will pretty much be the same."
No, that's not the case. After this bill passed into law, millions of people who were previously ordinary citizens partaking in the life of their communities became criminals.
After this bill passed into law, the right of a parent to decide who looks after their children no longer existed. After this bill passed into law, virtually any childcare that was not regulated by the state became a criminal offence. After this bill passed into law, the parents of children were stripped of their responsibility for deciding which other people could be trusted to look after their children, and that responsibility was arrogated to the state, by the state.
"There's more important things going on, and things that have a slim possibility of being changed."
Name one, go on. Name me one thing that even this current bunch of Stalinist pigfuckers have done that is more apocalyptically horrible than mandating that children are chattels of the state.
Of course the police aren't allowed to have any 'second jobs' in the UK, they work for the police, that's it. In this case Ofsted deemed that they are 'gaining' which would mean that they are also in breach of these regulations. I suspect a showdown between the police and ofsted in the coming weeks.
Easy, just say they are a co-habiting couple and very much in love and therefore the children are therefore each others step sister and thus problem solved.
The fact that they live in different houses is just because they have been unable to afford to put their houses on the market due to the cost of HIPS!
So it sounds like the only way to stay "legal" here is to limit ones exposure to children to under two hours or so ... and at the 90 minute mark, kick them off to the next house ...
"Hey little girl - do you believe in the hereafter?"
"Good, because that's what I'm here after ..."
Mine's the raincoat with the Aqualung CD in the pocket...
Take due note, Government.
You come anywhere near my child in a manner I don't like, in whatever guise you choose, be it ofstead, family services, the law, education, and I will take action against you. If the law won't stand with me then I will take 'illegal' action.
If you try to take my child away from me because of some petty rule, I will burn, fight and kill to get her back, and you will be my target.
I would suggest that if you don't want millions of people saying the same thing, and if you don't want to create a whole new form of terrorism, then you have best drop this deeply stupid and immoral set of laws immediately.
Consider yourselves warned.
We are now just beginning to reap the harvest that has been sowed by the tabloid paedo-hysteria over the past few years. It as led to situations where a man has almost been unable to even glance at any child by chance in the street without being thought of as a potential child abuser; where injured children have been left for fear that helping them may lead to a charge of child abuse; and where people have been told that they cannot take photographs in public places because the risk is that the photographers are child abusers. All of these would effectively ruin lives. Up to now, only a few people have realised that these are ridiculous over-reactions on the part of the public and police, largely whipped up by the tabloid press and others who attempt to justify it with the "if only one child is saved, it is worth it" specious argument. This latest spasm may be the turning point, but I wonder whether it may be the turning point only because we now have two *policewomen* become the victims of this brain-dead application of an ill-thought out piece of legislation.
Every morning on my way to work I walk past a bus stop full of kids waiting to go to school. Sometimes they shout hello to me and I wave back.
Do I need to be vetted?
When I go to my local pub, sometimes my mates have their kids with them. Last week one kid complained he was bored, so I let him play Tetris on my PDA.
Do I need to be vetted?
One of my relatives has two kids, and sometimes when I visit I watch the Simpsons with them.
Do I need to be vetted?
Was listening to the news last night, and Step-Parents are only covered when care of the children is in the home.
Outside the home they are not exempt, and would potentially need vetting it they take longer than 2 hours shopping, zoo visits and other such days out that last longer than 2 hours on more than 14 occasions per year except between the hours of 6pm-2am.
My head hurts this is so stupid.
Stupid MPs passing Legislation without proper thought and consideration.
Maybe we should find out which MPs voted on this legislation and target them for Stupidity Awards or Ignobles.
It's no wonder Yooof Organisations have huge issues recruiting and waiting lists for Yoofs.
Won't somebody fink of the Yoofs!
It appears that the rules are different depending on where the child is cared for. It would be legal to look after someone else's child in the /child's/ home for as long as you please and you could bring your own sprogs round too, because they'd be with you.
So if the women in this case are willing to swap house keys, the problem is solved. Since they are willing to swap children, this isn't terribly far fetched.
Firstly - I'm glad someone has finally posted a comment arguing the government's side of this! At least now it means we're having a debate instead of a rant...
I agree that the childcare industry needs to be regulated. That's totally appropriate action to take. If I take my child to a nursery, school, cub scouts, dance class or whatever, I expect the staff to uphold certain standards and be trained and proven to act properly. I've got no argument against this.
The issue here is with over-regulation. In a free society, parents should have basic rights to decide how they bring up their children. In this instance, the law is so broad that it encroaches on normal family life. To use your example, even crack-whores have the right to be parents and to take on all of the responsibility that it brings. If this article was really about crack-whores, I would at least expect people to be saying "Hang on, I think this applies to decent folk too!"
"I'm not generally minded to Daily Mailisms, but this really *IS* political correctness gone mad."
It doesn't matter how many asterisks you use or how upper your case is, this has nothing to do with 'political correctness', mad or otherwise. Over-intrusive beaurocracy gorn maaaaad, perhaps.
I am surprised they didn't arrest the Ofstead lacky for wasting Police time.
I was gobsmacked when this came out, as where my children.
They occasionally have friends round after school.
Sounds like this is now illegal, WTF has this country come to.
BTW Don't blame me - I have never voted Labour
That's the sleepover wrecked then ... "only during the hours 6pm to 2am"
So at 2 am I bundle the visting kids into a car and drop them off back at their homes.
I'm sure little Jimmy and Theresa and Mark etc all aged 2 and a half will fully understand why I am doing this.
Not AC because I used to be chairman of a lovely and highly sought-after primary school, that Ofsted wrecked in 2 weeks afetr 10 years building it up. I'd love a chance to have a pop at them. Come and get me you cunts and see what happens
So me and missus taking turns to drop young'uns off at school, in exchange for various "rewards" between us, is now illegal then?
FFS! Will this crap ever stop? Backroom gov officials with nothing better to do! How about you start poking you nose into more "families" like that poor 2 year-old kid that got beaten to death in his own home?
How about you useless f**kers go out right now and find every poor kid, sitting at a school desk, absolutely terrified to go home tonight, 'cos they don't what nasty thing is going to be done to them in their own home by people they're supposed to trust?!
How about you save just one more Victoria Climbe, by coming up with some sensible ideas, rather than wasting my f**king time and MY f**king taxes on this utter shite!
I wouldn't say that I was taking the side of the government, rather that if you professionally look after children, you should be properly trained to do so. If half of your job is looking after other people's children, which in this case it is, then you are therefore a part time child minder. You wouldn't expect any other part time child minder to be allowed to look after children without proper training.
It's possible that the definition of how long you need to be in the care of other's children could do with tweaking, as there is a 'how long', 'how regularly' and 'is there compensation' components this would seem to cover most situations.
As for some of the cack that other people are speaking here:
No it doesn't mean your children can't have their friends round.
It doesn't mean that they can't sleep over.
It doesn't mean you can't look after your friends/neighbour's kids as a favour.
It doesn't mean that you can't give kids a lift to school, etc. etc.
It does mean that you can't look after other people's kids, regularly and recieve some sort of payment/other reward for it.
Don't get me wrong - I have to deal with child protection regulation as part of a voluntary job that I do, it can be a massive pain, lots of parts that result in non-intended consequences, but I do think that this particular bit is about right. You shouldn't be able to commercially look after a child, if you aren't proven to be able to do so.
What ever the colour of the politicians the general public don't trust them, they now have taken away the right of parents on deciding their own child's child care arrangements. Next thing there will be legislation to control who can have children. I say bring back Guy Fawkes so he can do a proper job of it, then start again and have people we can trust like big busness directors who we know will not fiddle the expences claims.
"No it doesn't mean your children can't have their friends round."
Unless they are round for more than 2 hours at a time, and more than 14 times a year (52 weeks in a year last time I checked)
"It doesn't mean that they can't sleep over."
unless the sleep overs happen more than 14 times a year, and your kids have sleep overs at the other families house. - say to give each family a night off every couple of weeks?
"It doesn't mean you can't look after your friends/neighbour's kids as a favour."
See having friend round, esp. if they "recpricate" by looking after yours occasionally
"It doesn't mean that you can't give kids a lift to school, etc. etc."
Depends on how far it is to school, and whether you do it on the way back too.
"It does mean that you can't look after other people's kids, regularly and recieve some sort of payment/other reward for it."
If being able to work is considered a reward, then so is being able to go to the cinema, have a lie in, having a romantic evening, being able to go to the pub, etc.
In the case of the policewomen, a neighbour reported them to Ofsted.
So after they roll out the ID Card scheme <coughcough> I mean background checks to anyone that even sees a child during their day the government will start to publish 'dos and don't' for parents in the home.
Words that you can and can't use; phrases that shouldn't be used.
Neighbours, friends, families and even our own children will be rewarded for reporting breaches. Cameras with audio recording and behavioural analysis will patiently watch over us.
We will be taken away and re-educated in the correct manner.
Sound like a conspiracy theory? Look at Germany, Cambodia, Modern China and a host of others for actual history.
Ofsted, a quasi-autonomous governmental organisation, was created originally to be the watchdog for standards in school education.
Yeah, and how successful have they been at their own job? Of youngsters leaving school these days, 35% can´t read and the other 75% can´t add up!
OK, there is a ready reckoner (remember them?) in the pocket.
"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 citizen which refuses to fall in-line. Nearly all of them established during Vladimir Ilich Blair and Joseph Vissarionovich Brown's rule."
"Guilty until proven innocent" sums it up. And in the "Child Protection" racket the same individuals can be accusers, investigators, prosecution, judge, jury and executive agency!
Teachers, school nurses, school doctors, GPs, social workers and police officers all score brownie points when they express a "concern" at their joint meetings for such purposes. And once the "concern" has been taken up by another body within the cartel it becomes a "professional opinion" when passed on by them to a third body. And "professional opinions" have the same status as "fact." Neat, isn't it?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019