Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

CRB Checks for Swimmers

CRB Checks for SwimmersYou know how Nanny is so afraid of anything happening to children that she insists that all who come into contact with them on a professional level (eg teachers, volunteers, coaches etc) have CRB (Criminal Record Bureau) checks done first?

Well, she has thought about it and realised that there is a failure of logic.

Cue the dramatic roll on the drums!

Drum Roll

For you see dear readers, teachers, volunteers etc are not the only adults to come into contact with children...are they?

Adults pursuing their ordinary day to day activities may come into contact with children as well.

Thus Nanny is tightening up her CRB rules and insisting that local swimming clubs (who wish to have Swim 21 accreditation) perform CRB checks on all those over 18 who join...lest they come into contact with those in the club who are under 18.

Errmmm...am I alone in thinking that this is not a tad paranoid?

Given that people in the clubs swim together, what precisely could happen in such a group scenario?

I would also note that adults are not placed in the same swim lanes as the under 18's.

Those who join clubs under the age of 18 do not have to have a CRB check. However, as and when they turn 18 they do. Additionally, coaches who wish to teach at more than one club have to have CRB's performed at each club they work at (even though the check is performed by the same police force and same call centre).

Has Nanny totally lost the plot here?

Now here is a little question for Nanny.

You know how much she loves her forthcoming great waste of resources, namely The 2012 Olympics?

Will all British Olympic athletes (and indeed foreign ones too) need to be CRB checked before the London games, given that there are competitors who will be under 18?

This is but the thin end of the wedge, Nanny will soon insist that all adults have a CRB check performed.

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

11 comments:

  1. Perhaps this is one of the few things these days over which the EU Nanny does not claim enforcement rights. Perhaps UK Nanny's only toy to play with.

    I wonder, is there any chance that the anti-terrorist defences around Westminster Palace could be sealed off in order to keep the MP's INSIDE until they come to their senses?

    Or is this just another example of badly thought through laws adding to a pile of unintended consequences?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Keep the population frightened, that's Nanny's philosophy, as a frightened population is easier to control than a free, well educated confident one.
    Is it any wonder that many youth groups are so short of adult leaders...The scouts etc?

    The problem is that should you query any of the crazy rules that Paranoid nanny puts in place, the reply you get is along the lines of;"So you are happy to see children abused then?"
    We see this type of defence in so many areas now, eg So you want to see tax cuts? Which public services do you wish to cut...It is Labours standard reply to any such suggestion, they will not even accept there could be efficiency savings.
    If you question terrorist legislation, especially the more intrucive sections you are asked, what have you to hide?

    We are rapidly becoming a police state and with the new database that comes into compulsory force next year under the label of something like first contact, where the government keeps a centralized record on every child born and every contact that child has with "Professional Services" I fear we are going deeper and deeper into that police state.

    Adults all seem to be deemed guilty of something until they can prove themselves innocent, unfortunately, we don't always know what it is we are being accused off!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lord of Atlantis12:59 PM

    Nanny totally lost the plot, as you correctly put it, Ken, years ago, about the same time as our rights to be a self-governing nation were handed over to the EU on a plate by the traitors and quislings in the houses of parliament, the people who (supposedly) represent us!

    As far as this goes, speaking as a very keen swimmer, I suppose the next step will be to ban ALL adults from swimming pools and beaches (not to mention rivers and lakes) who have not received a satisfactory CRB check. Ooops! I shouldn't have suggested this idea, Nanny and her lackeys are so paranoid about paedophiles and terrorists, they will probably now implement such a policy in due course!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:13 PM

    So if Im reading you right, just having membership in a club or pool where children are, requires a background check? DOes this include a DNA swab?

    This is the biggest guilty before proven innocent I have ever seen. most children who are sexually abused,are abused by a family member, or someone close to the family. The "stranger abduction"is rare.

    Debbie

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tonk,

    Your question posed about 'Which services should be cut' is quite easy to answer without having to be concerned about efficiencies.

    We could start with Diversity Officers and the like and the funding to charities that are really govt. quangos for the advancement of acolytes and general helpers.

    Further up the path might come the entire edifice of the Government as they see themselves - plenty of paring opportunity there and then there is the EU which must offer unprecedented opportunities for savings.

    Have I mentioned the subsidies for countries to which we are exporting jobs on the back of which such places are involved in space 'exploration' that we seem not to have been able to afford independently of others for decades?

    And then there would be all the funding for would be Idi Amin's that more then likely gets channelled into Swiss bank account or similar.

    So, that would keep someone busy saying 'non' for the first week or so. I wonder how the question poser would respond. I would love to try it. May need to engineer an opportunity.


    Grant

    ReplyDelete
  6. With a sideways bow to the near-paranoid EU haters who post here, most of Nanny's excesses which Ken chronicles have little, if anything, to do with the EU. If we were no longer members, they would persist as long as ZanuLabour holds power, as they are part and parcel of its mindset.

    What interests me is: who are the anonymous persons who are deemed fit to administer and oversee all these snooping laws and regulations? What sort of a register are they on? Should they not be identifiable?

    My suggestion is that they should have a large "S" for "snooper" indelibly tattooed on their foreheads.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tonk.9:58 AM

    Grant:
    It is not my question, it is the question that is always posed as a kind of auto response whenever a tax cut is suggested. Labour supporters and politicians seem to be programmed to respond in the same way.....I agree with you on where such cuts could, nay SHOULD be made.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lord of Atlantis11:10 AM

    Fully agree with you, Grant. These are the areas where cuts should be made ruthelessly, as they would not affect public services: indeed, such cuts would improve them no end. And wouldn't itbe a much better society too!

    I am not paranoid, although I admit I am very much a Eurosceptic and strongly believe that this country would be better out of the European Union. Indeed, for the record, I (foolishly) voted 'yes' in 1975 for Britain to join the Common Market. However, like the majority of those who voted 'yes' I imagine, I did NOT vote to allow Brussels or European law (including the Court of Human Rights) to take precedence over laws passed by our own democratically elected House of Commons. And if the EEC is so great, as you seem to suggest, anticant, why is it that their own auditors have been unable to sign of their accounts for years? If that happened with a private company, the fraud squad would have 'felt some collars' long before now! However, I do very much concur with your other comments, about 'ZanuLabour' and those official snoopers infesting our society.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lord of Atlantis:

    I too voted yes, but to a free trading block....I did not vote for a European Socialist Superstate where we would be dictated to by unelected faceless people in Brussels!!

    God Save the Queen and God help Britain!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I appreciate it's not your question and was merely offering a few proposals as to how one might respond were such a question to be posed in civilised debate.

    anticant,

    I have no doubt than ZanuLabour would indeed still have similar pet projects related to control of the populace especially separating kids from parental influence and even engendering distrust as might be the case based reaction to Ken's observations in this item.

    However, if our politicians had more responsibility for real things that demanded debate, rather than simply hiding behind a regime of rubber stamping EUSSR diktats and saying 'it has to be done because Brussels says so', they might be more occupied with things of greater importance (and hopefully the responsibility might attract a better selection of candidates? Wishful thinking perhaps.) which might provide them with a more realistic view of the country they 'govern' and would leave them less time to dabble with BS like this.

    I see reports in the paper today about Balls wanting to ban fast food outlets near schools (I assume the subject of Ken's piece today, not yet read, next on list). We have the drive to provide detailed sex education for very young children for reasons that entirely escape me and numerous other intrusive projects most of which will gain headlines and develop reputations for their supporters but will have either little or no purpose or be deeply intrusive without delivery anything of value to individuals - perhaps not even the state.

    No doubt if they had some significant decisions to make they would screw them up BUT at least there would the possibility that that they would not have the time to screw up all the day to day aspects of social interaction as well. At this rate their biggest challenge will be how to get the populace, used to a dress down day appearance, into the grey utility suits with inbuilt tracking and reporting devices that they would no doubt like to introduce to feed Nanny's 'security' databases.

    Once she has achieved that Nanny will no longer need the snoopers, though I doubt that will stop her deploying them for other as yet unidentified roles.


    Grant

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not saying the EEC/EU is 'great' as it is, but I do think it might become better if we pitched in there more wholeheartedly with our British common sense [if we've got any left, that is - though I do sometimes wonder!]

    I also think we have more in common with our European neighbours than with the bizarrely barmy Americans, and if I had to choose between them - as in practice we DO have to - I'd plump for Europe every time.

    ReplyDelete