However, the rules are open to misinterpretation because checks are not necessary if a parent offers to give a lift to a friend's children to a match without telling the local club.

Don't ask, don't tell?

Come on, UK, now it looks like your TRYING to get on Fark.

Pedophiliphobia. That is all.

I didn't realize child molestation was such a big problem over in the UK. And I guess this is one problem that a CCtv couldn't solve.

next step: prohibit taking photographs of your own children at sports evets ! no wait ... they've already banned that !!!

Just as long as we're still free to molest our own kids, I'm alright with it.

Fark em. Let the little shiats walk. When a couple get picked up by guys with candy in crappy old vans, they'll change their tune.

This guy seems legit (new window)

what the hell is wrong with Brits? I know we're headed the same direction, but why're their knickers so twisted?

What...the....fark

The "Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006" sounds like the scariest thing I have ever heard.

Man, I thought people in the States were paranoid about kids. I live in a pretty quiet suburban area and kids don't play in the front yard by themselves until they are about eight years old.

At six and seven I was going to the neighborhood pool by myself. No way the kids today are doing that.

This "Protect The Children" Mantra will be the fall of our society as we know it. How about some farking parenting once in awhile?

Why don't they just add taking other kids to school, to the movies, to a birthday party, etc. This should about eliminate car pooling kids to events.

/ And what about sleep-overs, the parents should be checked.

I now believe nuclear action is appropriate to stop the spread of monumental stupidity.

Under new regulations, parents who are asked by the organisers of a children's sports team to take other children to sports fixtures like football or cricket matches will have to be vetted.

I already have to deal with that for the team I coach. It seems like a no-brainer from the point of view of the coach and the league (and other organizations attached to the team). If nothing else you have to worry about lawsuits stemming from inappropriate behavior or car accidents and the like.


But I don't understand this:
However, the rules are open to misinterpretation because checks are not necessary if a parent offers to give a lift to a friend's children to a match without telling the local club.

What is there to be misinterpreted? If a parent is still legally permitted to drive their own snowflake, then they have the legal right to assign another adult permission to drive the snowflake. The issue is when the team makes that assignment.

Next up: Parents must have background check before they give birth.

What? No "Nanny State"? How come there's hardly any mention of "Nanny State" when it's actually justified?

Wulfman: What is there to be misinterpreted? If a parent is still legally permitted to drive their own snowflake, then they have the legal right to assign another adult permission to drive the snowflake. The issue is when the team makes that assignment.

Wulfman, you demonstrate basic reading comprehension skills. You are hereby banned from Fark "nanny state" threads.

Children and Families Minister Kevin Brennan said: "Parents who volunteer to help with schools, or sports clubs, will need to be registered for free with the new scheme, if the activity is frequent or on an intensive basis. This is the same, and rightly so, whether the volunteering activity is teaching or training the children or transporting the children on behalf of the club. We make no apology for ensuring that those who work with children frequently whether on a paid or voluntary basis must be registered with the scheme.

This.

shank: At six and seven I was going to the neighborhood pool by myself. No way the kids today are doing that.

When I was 8 (early 70s), my mom dropped me off alone at the theatre a couple of miles away and picked me up when the movie was over. (Irony?: It was "A Hard Days Night". I walked out of it and hung out at a diner because I thought B&W was boring and I couldn't understand the accents...a few years later I discovered The Beatles and became a huge fan).

I was approached twice at that age by suspicious people - both times literally across the street from my own home.

Anyhow, maybe in today's environment, you wouldn't drop a kid off to a dark movie theatre alone, but back then, 95% of the people watching the movie (which was age appropriate) were kids that had been dropped off by their parents.

When I think of all the things my sainted mother could have been busted for when I was a kid...

Keith Brennan seems not to have read his own act. I ought to be surprised by that, but, even by the standards of the current government - which got a 'legislation by numbers' kit for Christmas, he can't find his own arse with two hands and a map:

"A person does not make arrangements for another to engage in a regulated activity merely because he (alone or together with others) appoints that person"

By the letter of the law, where all the parents are known to each other there is absolutely no difference between the parents of a group of children following a rota set by the team, and those parents making their own arrangements.

/my government depresses me
//almost as much as the alternative
///two party democracy is no democracy at all

I used to walk down to the Peachtree Battle Shopping center when I was about 8 almost every weekend. The only companion I had was the family dog (Small poodle, but such an awesome dog).

I was never harrassed, and my parents had no problem with it.

Used to walk almost everywhere back then actually. Until I was about 10 and got a Hutch Trickstar.

"vulnerable adults"? wow. just, wow.

gwowen: Wulfman, you demonstrate basic reading comprehension skills. You are hereby banned from Fark "nanny state" threads

Explain the misinterpretation that will occur if a man takes his son and his nephew to their every soccer game.

Or do you mean that when the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 is contrary to common law, that constitutes "misinterpretation"?

To me, the use of that word implies that parents will fail to understand the regulations. In fact, parents will understand these regulations and either follow them or not. The issue isn't one of parental "misinterpretation" as far as I can see. It's one of whether the full reach of the Act is even legal.

It'll save the children

/but not the British children

How did that Lady commenting on the subject, manage to bring childhood obesity into the equation....stunning out the box (and mind) thinking.

Governments should start looking at the cost of their policies, and not just the benefits.

henryhill: "vulnerable adults"? wow. just, wow.

Huh ? The measures put in place to protect them might be (are) ill thought out and overbearing, but the idea, for example, that a 40 year old woman with Down's Syndrome could be more vulnerable than a 16 year old child is hardly 'wow' worthy.

I agree with this, I also don't believe it goes far enough. I believe any adult who has business on school grounds, even a parent picking up their kid or a deliveryman dropping off milk at the cafeteria should be state checked. They should display a pass at all times and anyone caught in an area where children gather who does not display said pass should be immediately suspect, arrested and their image placed on a sex offender list so that State officials cam better monitor their movements around our precious children!

ahhhhh Anglo-Saxons ..they sure have their priorities right

/nanny state ftw

We make no apology for ensuring that those who work with children frequently whether on a paid or voluntary basis must be registered with the scheme.

If you people were in the habit of making apologies for EVERY stupid decision you make you would have NO TIME left over to make more stupid decisions. The rest of the world values your entertaining antics and would hate to see that happen.

This does not go far enough. All adults should be vetted. Then, they should be assinged to a risk category, similar to the US Terror Level Alert system. That color will be tatooed in the center of the individual's forehead.

This, really, is the only way to keep us all safe.

This is already the way things are where I live in Indiana. You can't chaperone a field trip or volunteer on anything that brings you in contact with the students outside of normal school hours without having a background check on file.

As a parent, I am all for it.

Alt_Login: I agree with this, I also don't believe it goes far enough. I believe any adult who has business on school grounds, even a parent picking up their kid or a deliveryman dropping off milk at the cafeteria should be state checked. They should display a pass at all times and anyone caught in an area where children gather who does not display said pass should be immediately suspect, arrested and their image placed on a sex offender list so that State officials cam better monitor their movements around our precious children!

Okay, I should "refresh coments" before I post. ;)
I like my tatoo idea better, though. ID cards are too easy to fake.

FarkinNortherner: ///two party democracy is no democracy at all

Democracy isn't very democratic tbh. You get a 1 in several million say in one of two parties that are 90% similar and will decide how 30-40% of your paycheque will be spent. Moreover they will regulate how you live your life including how you spend the rest of your money.

It is far more democratic for the government to leave everyone alone as much as possible.

namegoeshere:

Okay, I should "refresh coments" before I post. ;)
I like my tatoo idea better, though. ID cards are too easy to fake.


Upon turning eiteen, everone should go through a rigorous battery of psycological and psyciatric exminations by state mental health officials and be placed in the appropriate consentration camp depending on their risk level of pedophilia. The desire to procreate, by any male is esspecially suspect as it raises the question; Why would a male go to such lengths? Every image of all persons under 18 should be destroyed and made illegal with penalties of Life imprisonment for glancing upon a child that you are not the parent of.

/Burkas are an idea whos time has come!

lajimi: The rest of the world values your entertaining antics and would hate to see that happen.

I think it's far better to be valued for (often only when filtered through a fog of ignorance and a lurid tabloid press) entertainment value, than hated and feared as warmongering imperialists who've trashed the world economy, directly or indirectly killed tens of thousands, and, with a bitter irony, handed vast amounts of economic sway to sovereign wealth funds controlled by the very countries whose systems of government most closely resemble those they purport to have provided liberation from, but, hey, that's just me.

iancole: Pedophiliphobia. That is all.

The only thing that prevents me from putting you on "ignore" is that I'm not entirely sure you're legitimately trying to compare gay folks with pedophiles.

WFern: iancole: Pedophiliphobia. That is all.

The only thing that prevents me from putting you on "ignore" is that I'm not entirely sure you're legitimately trying to compare gay folks with pedophiles.

You do realize that phobia is a word/suffix not immediately tied to homophobia, right?

Smitter Hundreds of thousands of parents in the UK NANNY STATE will be banned from ferrying children PRECIOUS SNOWFLAKES to sports matches next year unless they have had criminal records checks BAD TEETH

FTFS

portscanner: Next up: Parents must have background check before they give birth.

Change 'background check' into 'exam' and I'm for it.

"Phobia" - means "the fear of"

Homophobia - the fear of gays
Agoraphobia - the fear of open places
Arachniphobia - the fear of spiders

etc., etc.

gwowen: Wulfman, you demonstrate basic reading comprehension skills. You are hereby banned from Fark "nanny state" threads.

Children and Families Minister Kevin Brennan said: "Parents who volunteer to help with schools, or sports clubs, will need to be registered for free with the new scheme, if the activity is frequent or on an intensive basis. This is the same, and rightly so, whether the volunteering activity is teaching or training the children or transporting the children on behalf of the club. We make no apology for ensuring that those who work with children frequently whether on a paid or voluntary basis must be registered with the scheme.


This.

Not This.

When I was a kid, my mom always volunteered to help with my/my sister's sports teams. She did it for us, to make sure we had what we needed. She helped out with dance recitals, as well. She was in no way a nefarious person, and it's offensive to treat someone who is involved with their own kids' activities -- that happens to involve other kids -- like a criminal.

If everyone is going to be treated like a criminal anyway, what is the incentive to NOT be a criminal? And where is the incentive to volunteer and do anything to help make the community/teams/etc. better?

I wouldn't do anything that required a background check. There is nothing to find, mind you -- I don't even have a speeding ticket on record -- but why would I submit to being treated like a criminal, a suspect for no reason other than simply being there?

I don't understand why people sit back and take these sorts of things, I really don't.

WFern: iancole: Pedophiliphobia. That is all.

The only thing that prevents me from putting you on "ignore" is that I'm not entirely sure you're legitimately trying to compare gay folks with pedophiles.

Um, "phobia" = fear of.

In this case, "fear of pedophiles."

In many cases, people's fear of pedophiles is irrational. Looking at news reports and articles that call for measures such as this, you'd think 9/10 of the population was just dying to get into kiddie pants, when in reality, pedophiles are rare, and those who act on any urges they may have are even rarer.

While pedophilia does exist and is a horrible thing, it has been so wildly blown out of proportion by now that people think anyone standing within 100 feet of a child is thinking of grabbing them and molesting them.

serpent_sky:
If everyone is going to be treated like a criminal anyway, what is the incentive to NOT be a criminal? And where is the incentive to volunteer and do anything to help make the community/teams/etc. better?

I don't think I'd rape anyone just because some girl crosses the street away from me when I'm walking late at night. The "incentive" is, as always, to lead a good life no matter what others may think.

I wouldn't do anything that required a background check. There is nothing to find, mind you -- I don't even have a speeding ticket on record -- but why would I submit to being treated like a criminal, a suspect for no reason other than simply being there?

You currently need a background check to, for example, be a Big Brother/sister, which makes perfect sense. It's not being treated like a criminal, it's due diligence. In the past, sexual predators HAVE gravitated to positions where they are in contact with children. It's not some kind of pointless nanny state paranoia.

The concern is, of course, if "security theatre" goes overboard and starts using background checks when they're NOT appropriate/necessary.

The sun shines East
The sun shines West
Britanias head
Is up her ass
Cuz sheeeees Naaaaqannnny!

serpent_sky: And where is the incentive to volunteer and do anything to help make the community/teams/etc. better?

Better teams?

Britain doesnt want better teams. Never has. They want better sports. Great Britain has invented every decent sport known to mankind. They have left it to other nations to perfect these sports and play them well. Better teams have never been an option in the UK and never will be.

No Such Agency: serpent_sky:
You currently need a background check to, for example, be a Big Brother/sister, which makes perfect sense. It's not being treated like a criminal, it's due diligence. In the past, sexual predators HAVE gravitated to positions where they are in contact with children. It's not some kind of pointless nanny state paranoia.

The concern is, of course, if "security theatre" goes overboard and starts using background checks when they're NOT appropriate/necessary.

Being a big brother/sister is quite a bit different than a parent of a kid on a sports team working closely with the team, don't you think?

I, personally, wouldn't do anything that required invasive checks, but that's just me. I can understand why certain situations call for them -- like your BB/BS example, or certain positions, even. But this specific example? Give me a break.

Way to go, Baby Boomers. You raised a bunch of farking pussies.

andrew131: Way to go, Baby Boomers. You raised a bunch of farking pussies.

A vote for Obama is a vote agauinst boomers.

the K in UK must stand for Kommunist.

i bet the next step is mandatory parent license. of course, no citizen can get one, so all children must be raised in government run institutions.

british people need to get the pitchforks and torches and burn down their government before its too late for them

serpent_sky:
Being a big brother/sister is quite a bit different than a parent of a kid on a sports team working closely with the team, don't you think?

I dunno... they are working with children after all. But no, I won't deny that simply driving a van full of rugrats to the next game seems like a pretty low-risk activity.