It seems that Nanny has been a tad "stung" by the mounting furore over her draconian plans to place 11 million on her "Won't Someone Think of The Children?" database.
BTW, a child (as defined by the law) is anyone under 18. In theory that means those in the armed forces who interact with troops who are under 18 need also to be checked...doesn't it?
Or is there an exemption there?
While I am thinking about it, what about priests?...or is that a wee bit contentious?
Anyhoo, Sir Roger Singleton, chairman of the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA - the taxpayer funded quango that will enforce this nonsense), is clearly hurting and said that people need to "calm down" and consider the issue "rationally".
Roughly translated, what this bureaucrat is saying is this:
"You are behaving in an irrational and emotional way, we (Nanny) know best".
Somewhat patronising don't you think?
However, what this also tells us is that Nanny is now sh*tting herself over this, and realises that she has lost this one.
Keep pushing hard and she will bolt for cover, like a wounded animal, and rescind this nonsense.
Can't you smell the blood?
I can!
Here is a link to the Independent Safeguarding Authority's feedback page, where you can track the wounded animal down to its lair, and put it out of our misery.
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 booze. 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
Not only that but it could mean that children whose birthdays are at the beginning of the academic year, so turn 18 in September, would need clearance just to go to school!
ReplyDeleteOr does it apply to anybody over the age of 16?
Often a wounded animal is at its most dangerous.
ReplyDeleteIn my own church, we have to have a child protection officer and anyone that wants to volunteer to sit with the children during mass, has to be cleared and vetted. This has cost a fortune and created a pile of paperwork; The funny thing is that the people that volunteer are usually parents and there are always several people looking after the children, so no adult is ever left alone with the kids.
The more I think about the implications of this latest wizzard wheeze by nanny, to raise money and create jobs, the more my blood boils. I find it offensive to be deemed a threat to children until I prove otherwise and I agree with a writer on the previous thread that the underlying message being put out, is to trust no one other than the state. Stalin would be so proud of nanny and must be wondering how on Earth she has managed to brainwash an entire population into blindly accepting such draconian measures.
I heard this 'Sir' Roger Singleton on the radio this morning, not only justifying this new law, but stating that it would not make any difference to people volunteering, i.e it would not deter them from coming forward. Who do you think you are kidding, MR Singleton? It would be interesting, by the way, to know who gave him his title?
ReplyDeleteHowever, this is as you say, typical of nuLabour and the Nanny state: they know what is best for us, and do not expect or like ANY criticism. However, there is a flaw in this proposal: it will do NOTHING to identify those paedophiles, without a criminal record of any kind. I also agree with Tonk, I too find the whole concept offensive, indeed, it goes against the most basic premise of English law, that of presumption of innocence unless and until proven guilty: now it seems the presumption is that all adults are guilty of paedophilia unless they are proven innocent!
Even the NSPCC and other children's charities oppose this idea,believing it to be a step too far!
ReplyDeleteWould it be too cynical to ask how long before it becomes essential to have DNA and fingeprint on the ISA database?
ReplyDeleteThat's another 11 million of us neatly logged, no need for the expensive paperwork that goes with an arrest.
It's a masterpiece really.
ReplyDeleteA potentially life ruining database with an unknown number of data errors and hearsay and gossip considered with the same weight as convictions (but we'll call that 'soft intelligence')
Maybe, at last, people see that this government merely considers us all to be suspects.
And it tells children that adults cannot be trusted and ergo, in the childs mind, unworthy of respect.
Same business as when we have the audacity to go through an airport. This is teaching us to sit down, shut up, and do what The Official tells us to do. Take off my shoes? At once. No liquids? Of course. Stand on one leg? Answer a bunch of stupid, impudent questions? Right away. No jokes, no questions, and _utterly comply_ if we know what's good for us.
ReplyDeleteThen we have SORN - you get fined for keeping an old car on your property, unless you regularly assure the DVLA that we're _not_ committing the offence of driving around in an untaxed vehicle. Otherwise, you get fined.
Now we're all nonces unless we pay to prove otherwise. Fail to do so in any situation (widely open to interpretation), and we get a £5000 fine and maybe worse.
We're no longer a nation of citizens. We're a nation of suspects.
Rather surprisingly, the 'Today' programme this morning interviewed an author (c/r his name) who said that the more that adult authority is diminished, the worse children behave and the unhappier they are. This, of course, makes sense as children need boundaries to feel secure and need to be able to trust the adult who imposes those boundaries. The vetting and barring scheme is a clear statement of state distrust of adults. If it were operated under the rule of law which allowed only convictions to result in failure, it would be superfluous. As it is to be operated, with allegation to be permissable, it's a charter for the malicious.
ReplyDelete...and FFS, why bother interviewing the guy who heads up the ISA (who, if anything, would have stoked people's outrage with the admission that allegation will be on record) - I, for one, be more interested in hearing what the NSPCC had to say.
Jay
Cost some £20 million and more jobsworths in "key labour marginals" Says it all really.
ReplyDeleteThe scheme ticks so many of Labour's boxes:
ReplyDelete* it puts the state between parent and child, such that only the state can be trusted in children's eyes (indoctrinate the young);
* fills their coffers at £64/adult (each parent, teenage offspring, any adult family member and friends (even the childless) or £5,000 for non-compliance;
* tops up their spy database;
* breeds fear and mistrust - divide and conquer.
Pure evil!
The Tories will only water this scheme down. We need to kill it! If the police were allowed to do their jobs properly, there'd be no need for such draconian measures.
Please join the Facebook protest group.
As Glenn says, the whole airport security business is farcical. I've just returned from a short holiday abroad. I'm 80+ and have to have a wheelchair at airports. Even so, they made me remove my leather belt so that it could go through the screening process - presumably in case it contained something lethal. How could it? Totally barmy.
ReplyDeleteAs for children, I wouldn't go near them nowadays (don't like them anyway). Because of the lunatic paedophile panic, no sensible adult will dare to admonish children whatever mayhem they are getting up to in public, and thanks to Nulabour and the Feminazis we are breeding a generation of feral uncontrollable youngsters.
- and now we find that, in Watford, it has been declared that parents of children, who have not been CRB checked, will be barred from accompanying their children into the playground areas.
ReplyDeleteHas the world gone mad?>