OT: Big Society

davmaggs

rjsterry wrote:

Yes, but...

A lot of these regulations - albeit somewhat over-reactive and possibly over cautious - were brought in for sound reasons after very serious incidents. I'm sure many can remember being taken to a scout camp or similar event in an overloaded, under-maintained minibus driven by a well-meaning, but inexperienced parent. It's too easy to reach for the 'elf'n'safety gawn mad cliché.

The driving licence does not address any of that. And there appears to be no analysis of the costs vs reward of constantly upgrading regulation. All of which is keenly supported by lobby groups. CRB checks on surgeons or on authors visiting schools was madness.

I'm not saying that a particular regulation is enough to incite protests in Parliament square or that the BS will become a roaring success the moment a couple of them are dropped, but add a few of them together and suddenly organsiations and roles have to become professionalised just to deal with the burden created by the state.

The moment that mothers were outlawed from looking after each other's children is a prime example.

The building societies, the civic buildings of many cities, schools, hospitals and so on were all created outside the state. It doesn't mean that you abandon the entire state sector, but instead you can modify things so that the state isn't sabotaging people's efforts.

wgwarburton

rjsterry wrote:

...Yes, but...

A lot of these regulations - albeit somewhat over-reactive and possibly over cautious - were brought in for sound reasons after very serious incidents. I'm sure many can remember being taken to a scout camp or similar event in an overloaded, under-maintained minibus driven by a well-meaning, but inexperienced parent. It's too easy to reach for the 'elf'n'safety gawn mad cliché.

So, better not to have a scout group at all than one where the kids might be at risk of death or injury...

As a society we're all too precious these days- should policy be set by grieving parents?

It's the whole "what about the childreeeen!" issue, isn't it: If it saves one life it will be worth it!

Will it? Really?

We could really do with some sensible discussions about risks and benefits in the UK- the press want to inflame any issue into a big fuss that'll sell papers, politicians want to be seen to do something to win votes, there's a massive and growing industry around regulation, inspection, certification and so on.

Just look at BoJoBikes: there's a widespread view that a couple of unfortunate deaths will kick off a press camapign to require helmets. That's widely believed to be impractical, so it would probably kill off the scheme.

Any chance of a rational debate? Seems unlikely, doesn't it. As soon as the topic comes up there will be a pile of detractors looking to make cyclist victims and bang all the familiar drums about road tax and RLJing. The commentators will shoot themselves in the foot by forcing cyclists back into cars and onto PT without ever seeing that their blinkered view is making the crowding they complain about worse... "Something must be done" of course... about the dangerous cyclists and about the terrible congestion... but that "Something" should be someone else's idea... Someone else who is clearly an idiot after the fact and can be blamed for the ills that befall...

Not that I'm cynical, of course....

Cheers,
W.

rjsterry

WGWarburton wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

...Yes, but...

A lot of these regulations - albeit somewhat over-reactive and possibly over cautious - were brought in for sound reasons after very serious incidents. I'm sure many can remember being taken to a scout camp or similar event in an overloaded, under-maintained minibus driven by a well-meaning, but inexperienced parent. It's too easy to reach for the 'elf'n'safety gawn mad cliché.

So, better not to have a scout group at all than one where the kids might be at risk of death or injury...

As a society we're all too precious these days- should policy be set by grieving parents?

It's the whole "what about the childreeeen!" issue, isn't it: If it saves one life it will be worth it!

Will it? Really?

We could really do with some sensible discussions about risks and benefits in the UK- the press want to inflame any issue into a big fuss that'll sell papers, politicians want to be seen to do something to win votes, there's a massive and growing industry around regulation, inspection, certification and so on.

Just look at BoJoBikes: there's a widespread view that a couple of unfortunate deaths will kick off a press camapign to require helmets. That's widely believed to be impractical, so it would probably kill off the scheme.

Any chance of a rational debate? Seems unlikely, doesn't it. As soon as the topic comes up there will be a pile of detractors looking to make cyclist victims and bang all the familiar drums about road tax and RLJing. The commentators will shoot themselves in the foot by forcing cyclists back into cars and onto PT without ever seeing that their blinkered view is making the crowding they complain about worse... "Something must be done" of course... about the dangerous cyclists and about the terrible congestion... but that "Something" should be someone else's idea... Someone else who is clearly an idiot after the fact and can be blamed for the ills that befall...

Not that I'm cynical, of course....

Cheers,
W.

That's not what I was saying: I meant that while over-regulation tends to snuff the whole thing out, a certain amount of regulation, proportionate to the risk, is necessary. There is a tendency to think that because people are volunteering their time, you can't expect too much of them or look at the voluntary work they are doing in any critical way.

Put another way, just because something is given for free, doesn't mean they should do the job to the same standard that someone paid for the job would be expected to provide.

bails87

davmaggs wrote:

The moment that mothers were outlawed from looking after each other's children is a prime example.

Err, I'm going to need convincing that it's actually against the law to look after someone else's children.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Yes, as usual the answer is (a) well someone else can do it and/or (b) well someone else can pay some more tax. It's never (c) - I'll do something about it, which of course is much harder than (a) or (b).

What do you think of the Big Society, W1?

I don't know enough about it to comment (so I haven't) but my perception accords with RJSterry/RJSTerry.

What do you think NSB?

I think its all been said before in this thread. Some very good points. Personally, I think that there already are lots of people giving up their time to volunteer. But the Big Society initiative is actually making it harder for people to volunteer in many cases by removing or reducing the public funding for the organisations they would be giving their time to. As someone has already said, you can't volunteer to work in a library if that library is being closed through lack of local government funding.

There are some unfashionable, yet very worthy causes that simply won't get enough funding if they relied entirely on volunteer workers or charitable donations.

Public service is very reliant on paid staff who are experts in their field and are remunerated accordingly. You can't expect people to come in and do the same job for free without a reduction in service. And thats the crux of it for me really. I believe the people behind the Big Society know this and simply want a reduction in service. Its ideological doublespeak.

davmaggs

bails87 wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

The moment that mothers were outlawed from looking after each other's children is a prime example.

Err, I'm going to need convincing that it's actually against the law to look after someone else's children.

easy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8277378.stm

bails87

davmaggs wrote:

bails87 wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

The moment that mothers were outlawed from looking after each other's children is a prime example.

Err, I'm going to need convincing that it's actually against the law to look after someone else's children.

easy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8277378.stm

:shock: Wow, I'm actually suprised how much truth there is behind what sounded like a typical Daily Mail type "Council BANS blahdeblah" story. So for the average person looking after someone elses kid on an irregular basis, it's not actually illegal. But the law does seem to be a bit ham-fisted in that respect.

I genuinely didn't know about that case, the fact that it's a regular occurence and they're deemed to be receiving a 'reward' is what swings it I suppose.

I guess this is the kind of thing that the gov't wanted people to point out when they had that "getting rid of/amending pointless laws" exercise. When all they got was "deport al forinners. Dey get benifits dat the english should have" and the like.

rjsterry

That was from September 2009, and even then, it seems that Ofsted were taking a particularly overzealous interpretation of 'reward'. Anything more up to date, as the article suggests that there were moves to revise the legislation.

davmaggs

The trouble with those propose more regulations is that they don't seem to assess whether there is a really serious problem that needs resolving, whether the law is the way to go and what is proportional (e.g why 2 hours and not 4?)

In this case why did the civil servants even think that they had a right to interfer in how mums organise their own childcare?

Chuck in the fact that NHS surgeons couldn't operate on children without a CRB check, and that one is required at each hospital they work at and it is lunacy.

davmaggs

rjsterry wrote:

That was from September 2009, and even then, it seems that Ofsted were taking a particularly overzealous interpretation of 'reward'. Anything more up to date, as the article suggests that there were moves to revise the legislation.

No, it says "review" and "talking to Ofsted", no change was proposed or made at all. These words were to get the news off the front page.

The Ofsted web site is very clear that nothing has changed and that parents cannot make their own arrangements between themselves.

bails87

davmaggs wrote:

Chuck in the fact that NHS surgeons couldn't operate on children without a CRB check, and that one is required at each hospital they work at and it is lunacy.

Er, I wouldn't say that was lunacy, I'd say that was sensible policy for safeguarding children. You want to know that the people you're leaving your child with, whilst in a vulnerable position, don't have a habit of doing things they shouldn't be doing. A CRB check is free for the individual and the results are confidential. They go to you and the organisation that requested it, it's not like they're put on the front page of the local newspaper. I've had CRB checks done loads of times, I don't see a problem with them.

And, to quote from the Daily Mail....*shudder* "Friends can look after each other's children without fear of prosecution".

Although, why they didn't write that into legislation rather than legislating one thing then giving a statement to the contrary is beyond me.

Agent57

I know how pointless and inadequate CRB checks are, in my opinion. I've been subject to 2 already, and have another one in the pipeline.

I argue against the need for either CRB or VBS checking in the first place. I oppose them for various reasons. For example, people who don't understand the nature of the checks are lulled into a false sense of security. "Oh, he passed his CRB check, so must be OK." In return they might actually put a child at more risk, because too much trust is conferred too soon, rather than it being built up more slowly. I don't think that would change with the VBS.

But actually, in reality the vast, vast majority of people are not kiddy fiddlers waiting to pounce. CRB and VBS comes from a position of inherent and systemic distrust of others. A feeling that everyone's potentially guilty unless they can show they haven't been caught... yet... I far prefer to approach people from a position of trust. I will assume people are safe to be around kids unless they give me a reason to think otherwise.

The majority of child abuse cases are familial or perpetrated by people the child knows as a friend of the family; not people who work with children. So if checks are going to be made anywhere, they should be made before people are granted a parenting licence, or a "being an uncle" licence.

And don't tell me I'd understand if I had kids; I've a 12 year old daughter and an 8 year old son, both of whom I've left in the care of adults without my needing to check their background. I don't subscribe to the view "if it saves even one child from abuse it's worth it" sentiment either. There are thousands of things that same approach can be applied towards.

It's no guarantee of safety, either; the Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells murders happened after the CRB check was in place as far as I recall.

Then there's the over-implementation of it. For example, we deal with headmasters who won't let our field engineers on site without them have an enhanced disclosure. This is despite the fact they'd have no contact with kids anyway, and it's not the type of casual access the CRB check is intended for (it's meant for those who have intensive contact with or work closely with kids/vulnerable adults).

And to bring this back to volunteering, it's an obstacle that does discourage people from bothering, I believe (I coach at a Go-Ride club). Volunteers don't tend to expect rewards other than satisfaction and a warm fuzzy feeling, but make them jump through hoops to do it, and many won't bother.

Bit of a rant, but it does annoy me.

DonDaddyD

CRB checks used properly are necessary.

Where the problem resides is when people misinterpret them. As was said before the implied assumption "oh, he passed a CRB he'll be alright".

But to be honest I would rather be 'checked' and have all staff exposed to sensitive information/vulnerable people 'checked' than not checked.

As for 'Big Society' in principle, as with most of the Tory/Lib Dem (do they even exist anymore?) policies, I agree with it. I'm all for people taking more pride and resposibilities in their community.

However, I fear yet again its just a smoke screen to butt frack us yet again. Seriously, I feel like I'm now actively being punished for voting and supporting Labour.

With the way things are and the price increases everywhere I'm more likely to take a paid weekend (second) job than volunteer my free time.

bails87

Agent57
I agree with most of what you said, but I still think a surgeon being checked isn't "lunacy". Of course it's no guarantee, but if it stops convicted paedophiles applying for jobs that would put them in 'intensive' contact with children* then it's a good thing. Obviously there comes a point where you have to draw the line though.

*Please don't mistake this for "won't somebody think of the children" hysteria. I'd say the same about someone with ten convictions for dangerous driving applying for a job as a HGV driver, for example.

Neil Holland

Too many people sit on their @rses complaining about not being provided with this or with that rather than taking responsibility for their own lives and doing something about it.

davmaggs

bails87 wrote:

Agent57
I agree with most of what you said, but I still think a surgeon being checked isn't "lunacy". Of course it's no guarantee, but if it stops convicted paedophiles applying for jobs that would put them in 'intensive' contact with children* then it's a good thing. Obviously there comes a point where you have to draw the line though.

But you wouldn't draw the line at surgeons who work in a room full of people and don't spend any alone time with the kids? Or that they can pass a check in Leicester, but can't operate in London without another check.

Is the line being a lighthouse keeper or working alone on a desert island?

And the checks do cost money, a lot of money when totted up across the country and that comes out of the pockets of either taxpayers or the voluntary organisations.

By all means have them for certain keys roles, but not the current hysteria.

DonDaddyD

bails87 wrote:

Agent57
I agree with most of what you said, but I still think a surgeon being checked isn't "lunacy". Of course it's no guarantee, but if it stops convicted paedophiles applying for jobs that would put them in 'intensive' contact with children* then it's a good thing. Obviously there comes a point where you have to draw the line though.

*Please don't mistake this for "won't somebody think of the children" hysteria. I'd say the same about someone with ten convictions for dangerous driving applying for a job as a HGV driver, for example.

Checks of varying kinds need to happen. When something goes wrong (German Doctor that killed his first patient when he was licensed to work here) first thing people say, wasn't he properly checked.

Company becomes liable, people get sued, lives get lost. Yes its tedious but they are there for a reasons.

We all get up in arms when we read lorry driver wasn't properly 'checked' for a UK licence had driven lorries for 25yrs but had exceeded the recommended hrs driving time (which also was not monitored) at the time of collision. I'm sure to him, his company and others the 'checks' are pointless paperwork, but he should have been 'checked' and monitored right? Doing so many have prevented him driving and saving a life, right?

DonDaddyD

davmaggs wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Agent57
I agree with most of what you said, but I still think a surgeon being checked isn't "lunacy". Of course it's no guarantee, but if it stops convicted paedophiles applying for jobs that would put them in 'intensive' contact with children* then it's a good thing. Obviously there comes a point where you have to draw the line though.

But you wouldn't draw the line at surgeons who work in a room full of people and don't spend any alone time with the kids? Or that they can pass a check in Leicester, but can't operate in London without another check.

And what if between the time I did the CRB in Leicester and I got a job in London I was found guilty of committing a terrible crime that would normally mean I couldn't work?

bails87

davmaggs wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Agent57
I agree with most of what you said, but I still think a surgeon being checked isn't "lunacy". Of course it's no guarantee, but if it stops convicted paedophiles applying for jobs that would put them in 'intensive' contact with children* then it's a good thing. Obviously there comes a point where you have to draw the line though.

But you wouldn't draw the line at surgeons who work in a room full of people and don't spend any alone time with the kids? Or that they can pass a check in Leicester, but can't operate in London without another check.

And the checks do cost money, a lot of money when totted up across the country and that comes out of the pockets of either taxpayers or the voluntary organisations.

By all means have them for certain keys roles, but not the current hysteria.

Well I beleive that there's a fair chance that a surgeon would have a number of chances to "credibly" be alone with kids, possibly while those children are vulnerable due to illness or medication. The silly stuff is wanting enhanced checks for someone working on a school site, but never going near the kids. It might be erring on the side of caution slightly, but I think "lunacy" is a bit dramatic.

As for having another check when you start a new job.....well there's no point having them if you can just constantly re-use the one from when you started work, despite committing a string of offences since.

Is the line being a lighthouse keeper or working alone on a desert island?

I'm not saying that everyone who might see a child on the street should be branded a paedophile until proven otherwise, I don't know why you're being so ridiculous.

Agent57

For some roles, DonDaddyD, I agree it makes more sense (my opposition in principle notwithstanding). For others, I don't. For example, I'm being CRB checked (again) for a change in job, even though I work in an office and have no contact with children. I don't go to schools, I don't work closely with children at all. I don't even have access to their details via a database. It seems entirely pointless to me, just bureaucratic nonsense.

Similarly, we have field engineers who sometimes need to go on site. Their work involves access to server rooms, and fiddling with machines. Again, they'd have no contact with children, other than a few they might encounter if the kids are out on playtime as they walk to or from their van. Yet over-zealous headmasters won't let them on site without a CRB check. They don't have extensive contact with kids, and they're not in a position of authority or trust (other than any adult is).

W1

CRB checks only show up the ones who've been caught anyway.

There are no guarantees, but come on - it's almost as if every man in the country is probably a paedo by default, which is completely hysterical.

I agree that these sorts of loopholes are a burden and are there to alleviate blame rather than increase security - for the simple reason that such risks are absolutely tiny in the real world, rather than Daily Mail world.

squired

If the government could give people a better sense of community I think it would be good. People don't necessarily need to volunteer to help their community. They just need to do things that can positively impact it, many of which will bear little or no penalty on their personal free time.

I'll give one good example actually. My brother reads lots of books, which he buys. Once he has read them he normally donates them to the local library. He commented the other day that they are pretty much the only new books the library has got in over the last year. Each time he donates books the staff in the library seem shocked, as it is such a rare event for them to get books donated. If more people did simple things like this it would help towards creating a so-called "big society".

bails87

squired
Another good example of things that should be encouraged.


But it's hard to donate books to a library when the library has been shut down.

davmaggs

DonDaddyD wrote:

And what if between the time I did the CRB in Leicester and I got a job in London I was found guilty of committing a terrible crime that would normally mean I couldn't work?

The case(s) aren't for someone leaving a job and moving months later. Surgeons rotate between hospitals daily, but the NHS demanded that they have a check for each institution and that being cleared in one hospital was not valid at another.

http://www.nursingtimes.net/specialist- ... 97.article

More to the point, when was the last known case of surgeons doing bad things to children?

These are prime examples where the state creates a rule, and then other state organisations decide to gold-plate by adding more requirements. As per posts from Agent57 with the schools hysteria. Then state organisations get keen on mission crept so bodies like Ofsted move from inspecting schools to worrying about how you organise your baby sitter.

Regulators should only bring in the minimal amount of regulation needed to ensure that critical concerns are addressed. Cut out any process, piece of paper or cost unless it is really needed (Rynair approach to process) and can be demonstrated to be effective.

DonDaddyD

davmaggs wrote:

<snip>

Maybe its because I'm too close to the topic being discussed but as tedious as a CRB check may be I'd rather surgeons had them than not.

The reason why they need to have them at each hospital is because the hospital itself, or more acurately the Trust the hospital is owned by will be individually held to account (and not the entire NHS) should anything go wrong.

It's like Mid Staffordshire, they had some severe breaches of quality standards, the entire NHS isn't held to account that particular Trust is. Now how this affects a Doctor/Surgeon with multiple CRBs I do not know. But when interacting with vulnerable people or sensitive data I want them checked.

More to the point, when was the last known case of surgeons doing bad things to children?

The assumption that 'it never happens so it's not likely to happen' is not justification not to have the necessary checks. We are talking about protecting vulnerable people and everything needs to be done to ensure their safety.

If the system is too long winded then it needs to be made more efficient but not done away with entirely because of an assumption that 'it hasn't happened for a while'.

Agent57

DonDaddyD wrote:

More to the point, when was the last known case of surgeons doing bad things to children?

The assumption that 'it never happens so it's not likely to happen' is not justification not to have the necessary checks. We are talking about protecting vulnerable people and everything needs to be done to ensure their safety.

I don't agree with you there. I think that the fact something never happens is justification not to have to check for it. I don't agree with the "everything needs to be done" aspect either; it's largely a similar argument to one that might be used by proponents of compulsory helmet wearing. It's not realistic to remove all risk from life, and I think the more unlikely something is, the more reasonable it is to just accept it as a risk.

wgwarburton

DonDaddyD wrote:

... We are talking about protecting vulnerable people and everything needs to be done to ensure their safety. ...

Umm, no. That's surely the point. Enough needs to be done to ensure their safety. doing everything is excessive.

There needs to be a sensible, realistic assessment of the risks. Unfortunately the assessment tends to be done after the event, with 20/20 hindsight and a remit that "it must never happen again". That's a really bad way to set standards. Look at the rail industry, for example- the introduction of TPWS is estimated to save 38 lives over a 25 year period... a cost of £15.4million per life saved... Is that value for money?

We ought to be making these judgements using a societal concensus on what's an acceptable level of risk- ie how many people are we, as a society, prepared to allow to be killed/injured/molested etc per year (or decade, perhaps for rare events).
We could then make a useful judgement of risk and calibrate a sensible response.

I'm not holding my breath.

Cheers,
W.

rjsterry

WGWarburton wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

... We are talking about protecting vulnerable people and everything needs to be done to ensure their safety. ...

Umm, no. That's surely the point. Enough needs to be done to ensure their safety. doing everything is excessive.

There needs to be a sensible, realistic assessment of the risks. Unfortunately the assessment tends to be done after the event, with 20/20 hindsight and a remit that "it must never happen again". That's a really bad way to set standards. Look at the rail industry, for example- the introduction of TPWS is estimated to save 38 lives over a 25 year period... a cost of £15.4million per life saved... Is that value for money?

We ought to be making these judgements using a societal concensus on what's an acceptable level of risk- ie how many people are we, as a society, prepared to allow to be killed/injured/molested etc per year (or decade, perhaps for rare events).
We could then make a useful judgement of risk and calibrate a sensible response.

I'm not holding my breath.

Cheers,
W.

Trouble is as soon as you phrase the question like that, there is absolutely no way that a politician can make an argument that X number of incidents a year are acceptable. They'd have resigned within the day even if that is fundamentally what we have to decide. There's also a big difference between arguing that a certain level of accidents is acceptable, and that a certain level of deliberate violent/abusive acts are acceptable.

Interesting that you bring up the train example. From my understanding the rail industry pretty much from its inception has gone along with the 'it'll never happen' model until some catastrophic crash, followed by a rather knee-jerk reaction to just solve that particular problem (normally something that could have been foreseen). Mind you heading off into Potters Bar, Southall, et al, not to mention the bureaucracy that is entailed with getting a new train built, is heading way OT

bails87

rjsterry wrote:

Trouble is as soon as you phrase the question like that, there is absolutely no way that a politician can make an argument that X number of incidents a year are acceptable.

Very true.

"I think X thousand sexual offences against children is perfectly acceptable" is hardly a vote winner

DonDaddyD

OK...

Maggs wrote:

I think that the fact something never happens is justification not to have to check for it.

Can you be sure, by way of proving, that no surgeons or employee who interacts with a vulnerable person (be it child, patient, service use) or sensitive information has ever abused their position in recent times?

It's no good speaking in individual cases, the CRB is designed to cover anyone who interacts with or comes in close contact with sensitive information and/or vulnerable people.

It's too easy to say it hardly or even 'never' happens. Point is, there is a risk of it happening and therefore checks and assurances become necessary.

Maggs wrote:

I don't agree with the "everything needs to be done"

How about "everything in our power to ensure the saftey of those who are vulnerable?"

Too be continued in the next two points

Buns wrote:

Enough needs to be done to ensure their safety.

To me that doesn't make any literary or practical sense. What is enough in th eyes of a mother putting her childs safety and life in the hands of a stranger if enough isn't everything.

Yes, I admit if I knew that what I wrote was going to be the point of scrutiny I would have wrote "everything in out power...." but the sentiment still stands.

Buns wrote:

and a remit that "it must never happen again". That's a really bad way to set standards.

No it's not. So at Mid Staffordshire where people were left to die in their own feces (and yes it did happen and yes it was in the past few years) you don't want a it must never happen again approach to setting health/quality standards? because believe me, it didn't need to happen and it doesn't have to happen again with a proper review of what went wrong. Evidentally the bosses of that hospital thought they did enough but clearly didn't do everything in their power to ensure the safety of the lives they were responsible for.

Buns wrote:

We ought to be making these judgements using a societal concensus on what's an acceptable level of risk- ie how many people are we, as a society, prepared to allow to be killed/injured/molested etc per year (or decade, perhaps for rare events).

To be honest I think that's just morally disgusting.

That you can rationalise how many kids per year are expected to be raped/abused/killed before it becomes unacceptable is vile.

The abuse/rape/killing of a single child in a year is is something I think as a society we should not tolerate. Not look at it and think calmly, oh well it's below our national target/figures so its OK.