OT: Big Society

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Back in the real world, how would you go about ensuring that? Because the CRB check doesn't.

It's the same as road deaths. Every one is unacceptable, of course it is, but short of banning the motor car or making everyone drive at 5mph everywhere there is no practical way of ensuring that no-one is killed on the roads. So there has to be a balance between prevention and practicality, surely?

I don't think anyone is advocating being a paedo BTW, but there is a need to be realistic. The risk is inifintely small, and the perps are usually family members - and as yet there's no CRB check required to be a parent, uncle, aunt, grandparent etc etc so what do you propose to do about that?

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Back in the real world, how would you go about ensuring that? Because the CRB check doesn't.

It's the same as road deaths. Every one is unacceptable, of course it is, but short of banning the motor car or making everyone drive at 5mph everywhere there is no practical way of ensuring that no-one is killed on the roads. So there has to be a balance between prevention and practicality, surely?

We don't (as was suggested) as a society come to a general consensus of how many road related deaths are and are not acceptable.

Yes, if there is a strong correlation between the type of accident on a particular road then preventative action may be taken (one way and speed humps for example). But we don't say OK if it the number of deaths hit 50 then and only then we'll take action.

I don't think anyone is advocating being a paedo BTW, but there is a need to be realistic. The risk is inifintely small, and the perps are usually family members - and as yet there's no CRB check required to be a parent, uncle, aunt, grandparent etc etc so what do you propose to do about that?

There are other checks to ensure that children are safe with parents/family members etc. If the risks are infinitely small (and I don't know I would need proof) then i would argue that they are kept small because the CRB is a preventative measure.

rick_chasey

'Big society' is just rhetoric which attempts to soften the inevitable loss of local services by tapping into the Top Gear-esq anti nanny-state discourse to persuade voters to live with the losses.

Ultimately British voters demand public services when they need them, hate them when they don't immediately need them, and refuse to pay for it.

Cameron knows that, and, since he's ideologically anti big-state, (and is, in part at least, using the cuts as an excuse to exercise said ideology) needs something to soften the blow that will ultimately come.

In short, it's political guff.

davmaggs

If you want to keep CRB checks then scale them back (as is due to happen) to a sensible level on key people, and make the checks transferable.

Why on earth is the same person being "checked" again and again when a simple certificate number could be given to that person so that they can quote it to each organsiation that they work with (and they can confirm it online)?

It's not hard, just not in the mindset of people who like unlikely 'what ifs' and a*** covering.

As for quoting the scandal at Mid-Staffs. What has that got to do with regulation, they didn't follow any of the existing ones?

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Back in the real world, how would you go about ensuring that? Because the CRB check doesn't.

It's the same as road deaths. Every one is unacceptable, of course it is, but short of banning the motor car or making everyone drive at 5mph everywhere there is no practical way of ensuring that no-one is killed on the roads. So there has to be a balance between prevention and practicality, surely?

We don't (as was suggested) as a society come to a general consensus of how many road related deaths are and are not acceptable.

Yes, if there is a strong correlation between the type of accident on a particular road then preventative action may be taken (one way and speed humps for example). But we don't say OK if it the number of deaths hit 50 then and only then we'll take action.

I don't think anyone is advocating being a paedo BTW, but there is a need to be realistic. The risk is inifintely small, and the perps are usually family members - and as yet there's no CRB check required to be a parent, uncle, aunt, grandparent etc etc so what do you propose to do about that?

There are other checks to ensure that children are safe with parents/family members etc. If the risks are infinitely small (and I don't know I would need proof) then i would argue that they are kept small because the CRB is a preventative measure.

Do you think that pre CRB checks there were peadoes evertywhere that have somhow gone away? Or do you think they were brought it for backside covering and the risk has barely changed? And don't forget, they only note the ones that get caught.... As for checks on family members, you don't need to have a CRB check to have children or be around them as members of your family, and that's where the biggest risk lies. That's why a reliance on CRB checks is rather crazy. It really doesn't target those most at risk.

And although we don't put a limit on acceptable road deaths, there are avenues to take that would reduce them to zero. The fact that these are impractical suggests that there is a tolerable level. Ditto pretty much all other crimes. There is always a balance of risk to practicality, much as that is hard to stomach when put so bluntly. So there is an "acceptable" level, rather than a target as such.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

Do you think that pre CRB checks there were peadoes evertywhere

Yes! Tell me you remember the great Peado War of '02. You couldn't walk down to the corner shop to get a pack of hubba bubba without being bundled into a car! Getting on a train in my school uniform hands everywhere... or was that a party I got drunk at.

Of course not.

What I 'm saying is that I would rather people who come into contact with vulnerable people and have access to sensitive information are checked appropriately and thoroughly. There is a risk there, therefore the checks need to happen.

The system doesn't have to be exhaustive. What constitutes exhaustive is where we may disagree.