Overzealous anti-paedo scheme not dead yet

Am I a threat?

I bought Modern Warfare 2 for the PC yesterday. Quite disappointing single player campaign... Was finished in a little over 5 hours. Far too linear.

Anyway, does that suggest a propensity to shooting up airports? Or is it blowing up airports as the Russians suggest? Or shooting up schools as the Americans suggest(ed after Columbine, Re: Doom).

I guess I should resign, seeing as I'm such a threat to the children at the schools I've worked in for six years.

Fail.

How about some accurate reporting?

It wasn't just anti-paedo, it also looked at vetting those who worked with vulnerable adults. (Yer granny fiddlers, care home workers nicking pensions etc.)

Whether or not it was a good thing I'll leave for others, but not once did I see any mention of this point, especially as a significant chunk of those who would have had to register would have had to have done so on that basis and that a good 50% of the effort of setting up the scheme was in that direction.

Still, the Telegraph et al managed to avoid that point, so no reason to think that El Reg would bother stooping to that level of accuracy. Not that, you know, you'd have to do anything more strenuous like reading the published guidance documents, or ringing (or emailing!) the Home Office press office...

/mines the one with the list of Manifesto Club members in the pocket...

Stupid Stupid Stupid

I am CRB checked by my company as it is an easy background check.

I am enhanced CRB checked as I am involved with running a Nursery

I am CRB checked as I am a volunteer driver for the local hospital

And yet when I volunteered to assist cooking duties for my son's Scout group camp, I was turned down as I was not CRB checked.

Interests?

"interests (such as violent erotic films) that might statistically indicate a propensity for future real-life violence" - statistics from where?

Studies come and go on issues like this. While I don't expect Plod and/or the Government to be smart enough to point that out, I thought El Reg might.

Or has my violent-erotica-addled brain missed something?

Oh, God, not more of this.

There is just so much wrong with what the VBS is being said to be going to do that it's almost as bad as the original.

"it should also attempt to predict (and exclude) those likely to do so in future. This it would do by collating details of minor crimes committed, as well as interests (such as violent erotic films) that might statistically indicate a propensity for future real-life violence."

So, hasn't anyone told the civil slave drivers, sorry servants, that statistics work very well for huge groups but are abysmal on individuals.

The hairy arsed biker, while he may enlarge a child's vocabulary with words that the parents might object to, might be the one to die protecting that child from the mild clerk who 'just flipped'.

And how are they going to judge my "interests (such as violent erotic films)"? Am I going to have to submit to weekly visits from the DVD police? Will my collection of Hammer Horrors earn me a life long ban from being within the same county as a child, or just a sympathetic look from the examiner?

And how about being a member of the BBFC? _They_ watch all sorts of films, nearly all don't even have a certificate. Hang those perverts.

Who on Earth thinks that they have the right to judge what I _MAY_ do? By what standard do they think that they have the intelligence or foresight to adjudge that I _MIGHT_ be a danger?

And who on Earth put a clause into the act saying that MPs and Local Councilors don't need to be vetted. Most of those bastards need vetting in the veterinary use of the term.

Years ago I stopped updating my first aider qualifications. Now I'll watch a person die rather than even try to help them. Try and sue me for doing something I'm not (now) qualified to do.

This is the result of all of these 'protection' schemes. People have stopped volunteering in droves. There aren't the youth clubs or associations any more as there isn't any one to run them. There aren't the male school teachers because men have been driven away from the profession because of the absolute belief that men are a danger and women aren't.

sad

It is sad that people are trying to predict who might commit an offense against children. I can imagine a future that all parents must be licensed to have children. Perhaps being interested in soap operas would disqualify you as a parent. With all this over protection of children, world wide child abuse grows at an alarming rate in spite of this over zealous approach to prevention. I just got through watching a downloaded wiki-leak about some soldiers "lighting up" a child in Iraq. If you really want to stop child abuse, stop all the senseless wars that are going on. Then you can go one step further by sending aid to countries where children are starving to death. That would do a lot to prevent child abuse

"members of their family, or close and trusted friends."

"Statistically speaking, the overwhelming majority of those who abuse children or the elderly are members of their family, or close and trusted friends."

Very true, and often overlooked, courtesy of the tabloid madness.

You forget to explicitly mention the local religious Father figure (the dodgy ones are usually Catholic, aren't they, statistically speaking?)

Intensive?

Have they changed the definition of "intensive" they were previously using? It was just seeing children once a week. If this is still the definition, the whole thing is still totally ridiculous.

It's like OFSTED, where "satisfactory" mean "not good enough", whereas everywhere else it means good enough. Fiddling the definitions of words can easily make things sound much better than they are.