The Kintyre Forum

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

Heard bit of this on the radio this morning, didn't know anything about it before, Shocking

If it was in a futuristic movie a few years ago, no one would have believed it. Unfortunately, its believable now. The world is crazy.

I couldn't really follow the argument. They seemed to say that, although you could trust your friend you didn't know who else was going in and out of their house. However surely, even after they'd been through their disclosure check, you still wouldn't know who was going in and out of their house. Where do you draw the line?

what would they do if instead of "babysitting" it was a playdate????

It's becoming more and more easy to become a criminal in this country without even trying!

Taken from the NSPCC website

25 per cent of children experienced one or more forms of physical violence during childhood. This includes being hit with an implement, being hit with a fist or kicked, shaken, thrown or knocked down, beaten up, choked, burned or scalded on purpose, or threatened with a knife or gun. Of this 25 per cent of children, the majority had experienced 'some degree of physical abuse' by parents or carers.


If "the world is crazy" because children are being protected and even if one child is saved the misery of abuse by passing laws like this then I don't mind living in a crazy world.

I am sure these figures have been researched by someone, just seems a bit high to me.. I am quite sure the lady concerned probably trusted her collegue who she had known for years. Surely there should be some room for common sense in these matters. The proffesionas are not always blameless.. remember Shipman.

Apparently, if you look after a child in it`s own home you`re a child carer, and not illegal, but if you look after the child in your home, them you`re a child minder and have to be legally registered. Where`s the difference?

History wrote:Taken from the NSPCC website

25 per cent of children experienced one or more forms of physical violence during childhood. This includes being hit with an implement, being hit with a fist or kicked, shaken, thrown or knocked down, beaten up, choked, burned or scalded on purpose, or threatened with a knife or gun. Of this 25 per cent of children, the majority had experienced 'some degree of physical abuse' by parents or carers.


If "the world is crazy" because children are being protected and even if one child is saved the misery of abuse by passing laws like this then I don't mind living in a crazy world.

Children are abused by parents, government licensed teachers, boyscout leaders, daycare center caregivers, family friends, siblings, uncles, neighbors etc etc etc. You think you are saving one child by taking away the rights of the parent to protect the children they love by deciding who will watch their children, and in this case a female police officer? Children aren't being saved the misery of abuse. The rights of the parents are being ripped even more out of their hands. What about the many stories in the US and the UK about social workers and caregivers, teachers and people in authority who were supposed to be "protecting" children who have abused them and sometimes have caused the death of the children by their neglect or by putting the children in the care of people who were licensed foster parents etc etc etc.

Some kid takes a course in daycare and suddenly they are more responsible and less capable of abuse than the people you have known and trusted for years?

The only difference between 2009 and 1939 is

... there used to be one big Hitler

... now there are lots of little ones

I'll let you get back to your tabloids now ...