A single CRB check is enough

Like a TV or vehicle licemce, a SRB check should be valid for a fixed period and acceptable to all bodies requiring it, avoiding the need to get a new one for every new appointment where one is needed.

Why is this idea important?

Like a TV or vehicle licemce, a SRB check should be valid for a fixed period and acceptable to all bodies requiring it, avoiding the need to get a new one for every new appointment where one is needed.

right to photograph your own children, and to be protected from false accusations

I suggest this as someone without children, but having heard of this issue from several relations and friends.

 

If a parent wants to photograph their own child at a scool event, such as the nativity play or sports day, or at a significant first, such as their first swimming lesson, they should not be automatically assumed to be potential pedophiles. These restrictions are often over zealously applied by local authority employees and are an infringement on our civil liberties. They also set the tone for everyone feeling they are a suspected pedophile or pervert.

 

Any parent wanting to photograph their own children should be allowed to do so, providing no other parent raises an objection thet their child is included. This should be a common sense matter between adults, taking responsability for their own actions, not a mandated socialist nanny state restriction!

 

The child protection laws are a great thing, and save many from abuse and sufferring, but how many innocent adults have had their lives ruinned by parents or children making false accusations? There shouls be greater protection within the law so that those not found guilty are protected whilst accusations are investigated fully, and so no record of the false accuastion is recorded against them.

Why is this idea important?

I suggest this as someone without children, but having heard of this issue from several relations and friends.

 

If a parent wants to photograph their own child at a scool event, such as the nativity play or sports day, or at a significant first, such as their first swimming lesson, they should not be automatically assumed to be potential pedophiles. These restrictions are often over zealously applied by local authority employees and are an infringement on our civil liberties. They also set the tone for everyone feeling they are a suspected pedophile or pervert.

 

Any parent wanting to photograph their own children should be allowed to do so, providing no other parent raises an objection thet their child is included. This should be a common sense matter between adults, taking responsability for their own actions, not a mandated socialist nanny state restriction!

 

The child protection laws are a great thing, and save many from abuse and sufferring, but how many innocent adults have had their lives ruinned by parents or children making false accusations? There shouls be greater protection within the law so that those not found guilty are protected whilst accusations are investigated fully, and so no record of the false accuastion is recorded against them.

Naturism venues

 Repeal the licensing laws, bye law enabling powers, revoke the associated bye laws, and other regulations which allow councils and others to restrict, without any objective justification, the freedom to be nude at recreational venues.

Why is this idea important?

 Repeal the licensing laws, bye law enabling powers, revoke the associated bye laws, and other regulations which allow councils and others to restrict, without any objective justification, the freedom to be nude at recreational venues.

Child (and adult) protection

Repeal or reform all legislation and policy which assumes or encourages the belief that children are inherently sexual. For example aspects of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and related legislation. As a minimum the word "indecent" should be replaced with "pornographic" and "pornographic" should be defined as "erotic" or "sexual".

Why is this idea important?

Repeal or reform all legislation and policy which assumes or encourages the belief that children are inherently sexual. For example aspects of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and related legislation. As a minimum the word "indecent" should be replaced with "pornographic" and "pornographic" should be defined as "erotic" or "sexual".

Remove Qualified Privilege

The defense of qualified privilege permits persons in positions of authority or trust to make statements or relay or report statements that would be considered slander and libel if made by anyone else.  (Definition courtesy of wikipedia).  Qualified privilege is frequently quoted as a defence by people reporting "concerns" about others or by public bodies to prevent [eg Child Protection] concerns being surpressed.  

Although the defence of qualified privilege may be defeated if the accusation is shown to be malicious, this is incredibly difficult to prove in court.  in practice what happens is that many, many frivolous concerns are raised wasting a lot of people's time.  There is no requirement for any substantiation to an allegation and knowledge that workers have this defence reduce the onus on them to be professional.  

False accusations wreck families.  Anyone can submit a referral for the most bizarre and weird interpretations of childrens innocent conversation without making any effort to engage further with the child to understand what was meant.  Once submitted, it can not be deleted, however incompetent the person who raised the referral.  Is this justice?

We must record acurrate statistics for the number of Child Protection referrals which are NOT investigated by Social Services so we can state the % of false accusationseach year.  Current Home Office Statics and (brilliant) false accusation support organisations estimate it to be around 40%. 

If the defence of qualified privilege is removed, then people submitting child protection referrals will require more than snippets of a child's conversation to accuse you.  They will be forced to be competent by statute. 

Fewer referrals will mean more resources to dedicate to the serious cases of child abuse, many of which have dominated the news recently. 

The measure of whether this has been achieved will be an increase in the % of referrals progressing to the next stage (case hearing) ie the dross is eliminated leaving Social Work only the [more] serious cases to concentrate on. 

Why is this idea important?

The defense of qualified privilege permits persons in positions of authority or trust to make statements or relay or report statements that would be considered slander and libel if made by anyone else.  (Definition courtesy of wikipedia).  Qualified privilege is frequently quoted as a defence by people reporting "concerns" about others or by public bodies to prevent [eg Child Protection] concerns being surpressed.  

Although the defence of qualified privilege may be defeated if the accusation is shown to be malicious, this is incredibly difficult to prove in court.  in practice what happens is that many, many frivolous concerns are raised wasting a lot of people's time.  There is no requirement for any substantiation to an allegation and knowledge that workers have this defence reduce the onus on them to be professional.  

False accusations wreck families.  Anyone can submit a referral for the most bizarre and weird interpretations of childrens innocent conversation without making any effort to engage further with the child to understand what was meant.  Once submitted, it can not be deleted, however incompetent the person who raised the referral.  Is this justice?

We must record acurrate statistics for the number of Child Protection referrals which are NOT investigated by Social Services so we can state the % of false accusationseach year.  Current Home Office Statics and (brilliant) false accusation support organisations estimate it to be around 40%. 

If the defence of qualified privilege is removed, then people submitting child protection referrals will require more than snippets of a child's conversation to accuse you.  They will be forced to be competent by statute. 

Fewer referrals will mean more resources to dedicate to the serious cases of child abuse, many of which have dominated the news recently. 

The measure of whether this has been achieved will be an increase in the % of referrals progressing to the next stage (case hearing) ie the dross is eliminated leaving Social Work only the [more] serious cases to concentrate on. 

Removal of Parental Responsibilty for Long term Prisoners

Civil liberties gone mad, in the eyes of the law no matter what you do you will unless your child is put up for adoption have responsibilty for your child.

This means you can abuse children be prosecuted and still have parental responsibilty, you can murder somebody, rape somebody and god knows what else but it would never be removed.

This means a child or a partner who has endured years of abuse still has to seek permission to take there child out of the country by somebody who is in prison, the only steps you can have put in place are no contact orders and prohibitive steps order, even then if you were to leave the country for longer than a month you would have to still seek permission from the other parent who could be more of a danger to the childs well being.

Your liberties are taken away when you goto prison and i feel if it is a long term sentence parental responsibility should be removed especially if the imprisoned parent is not released until after the child is of adult age.

Why is this idea important?

Civil liberties gone mad, in the eyes of the law no matter what you do you will unless your child is put up for adoption have responsibilty for your child.

This means you can abuse children be prosecuted and still have parental responsibilty, you can murder somebody, rape somebody and god knows what else but it would never be removed.

This means a child or a partner who has endured years of abuse still has to seek permission to take there child out of the country by somebody who is in prison, the only steps you can have put in place are no contact orders and prohibitive steps order, even then if you were to leave the country for longer than a month you would have to still seek permission from the other parent who could be more of a danger to the childs well being.

Your liberties are taken away when you goto prison and i feel if it is a long term sentence parental responsibility should be removed especially if the imprisoned parent is not released until after the child is of adult age.

Children and there rights in the country

I think that children that are born in the country should have the same rights worth there parents are British or not. The law that status if a child's parent is not British then the child is not British, should change. This law has create many  problems because now majority of children living in the U,K are abused or neglected.

Why is this idea important?

I think that children that are born in the country should have the same rights worth there parents are British or not. The law that status if a child's parent is not British then the child is not British, should change. This law has create many  problems because now majority of children living in the U,K are abused or neglected.

change social workers outlook

when a baby has a mum ans dad I think so long as baby is safe why put them up for adoption why not leave with one or the othert. like us we are fighting th SS to keep my partners son away from SS who have ear marked him for adoption

Why is this idea important?

when a baby has a mum ans dad I think so long as baby is safe why put them up for adoption why not leave with one or the othert. like us we are fighting th SS to keep my partners son away from SS who have ear marked him for adoption

Over onerous child protection

Child protection law needs to have an element of common sense built in. For instance, many schools routinely ban parents from taking pictures of their children at sports days on the basis they may be paedophiles, many school exchanges are at risk because parents have to be vetted and a group from Belarus were recently turned back on the basis that their hosts hadn't had a second security check when some of them had already been vetted. Plus the demands on employers for work experience placements are so onerous within the state sector, that many employers simply won't take on sixteen year olds even for a week.

There needs to be an element of "let the buyer beware" whereby parents accept that their child may be going to an unvetted home, or if they don't want to do that, simply don't send them! Children in secondary school who may be less willing to speak up are more at risk, but at the moment, we have the strange situation where adults are fearful of giving children they know lifts or sending them off on exchanges–with no recorded incidents as far as I know–and yet dozens of children are killed by their parents, despite all the involvement of social services!

Yes, adults in charge of swimming teams, youth clubs etc need vetting, but that is because they are in constant contact with children (as are priests etc), but one-offs and occasionals should have more leeway. One should also remember that being vetted doesn' t mean that someone won't commit an offence, merely that they haven't done so or been caught so far…

 

 

T

Why is this idea important?

Child protection law needs to have an element of common sense built in. For instance, many schools routinely ban parents from taking pictures of their children at sports days on the basis they may be paedophiles, many school exchanges are at risk because parents have to be vetted and a group from Belarus were recently turned back on the basis that their hosts hadn't had a second security check when some of them had already been vetted. Plus the demands on employers for work experience placements are so onerous within the state sector, that many employers simply won't take on sixteen year olds even for a week.

There needs to be an element of "let the buyer beware" whereby parents accept that their child may be going to an unvetted home, or if they don't want to do that, simply don't send them! Children in secondary school who may be less willing to speak up are more at risk, but at the moment, we have the strange situation where adults are fearful of giving children they know lifts or sending them off on exchanges–with no recorded incidents as far as I know–and yet dozens of children are killed by their parents, despite all the involvement of social services!

Yes, adults in charge of swimming teams, youth clubs etc need vetting, but that is because they are in constant contact with children (as are priests etc), but one-offs and occasionals should have more leeway. One should also remember that being vetted doesn' t mean that someone won't commit an offence, merely that they haven't done so or been caught so far…

 

 

T

Child protection and small community groups

Guidance and regulations around Safeguarding Children and Child Protection are complicated and often misunderstood and/or misinterpreted by small voluntary groups (such as amateur theatre groups and choirs). Trying to find clear guidance is difficult.

I feel that a set of simple, well publicised "safeguards" for such groups would be very helpful – for example making sure children are not left alone with a single adult.

Why is this idea important?

Guidance and regulations around Safeguarding Children and Child Protection are complicated and often misunderstood and/or misinterpreted by small voluntary groups (such as amateur theatre groups and choirs). Trying to find clear guidance is difficult.

I feel that a set of simple, well publicised "safeguards" for such groups would be very helpful – for example making sure children are not left alone with a single adult.

Stop protecting the anonymity of teenagers convicted of violent crime

Amend the law which grants the right of anonymity to young offenders so that it does not apply to those aged 13 or over convicted of the most serious crimes, such as murder, attempted murder and grievous bodily harm.

The law should be protecting the victims of these crimes, not the perpetrators.  What is more, the public should have the right to know the identity of someone who has been convicted of committing a very serious crime in their community.

By the age of 13 someone should be well aware that such crimes destroy the lives of the victims and the victims’ families and should thus suffer the full consequences of their actions.  The perpetrators of these crimes are violent thugs, not sweet, innocent ‘children’ who need mollycoddling and protecting, and the law should reflect this.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the law which grants the right of anonymity to young offenders so that it does not apply to those aged 13 or over convicted of the most serious crimes, such as murder, attempted murder and grievous bodily harm.

The law should be protecting the victims of these crimes, not the perpetrators.  What is more, the public should have the right to know the identity of someone who has been convicted of committing a very serious crime in their community.

By the age of 13 someone should be well aware that such crimes destroy the lives of the victims and the victims’ families and should thus suffer the full consequences of their actions.  The perpetrators of these crimes are violent thugs, not sweet, innocent ‘children’ who need mollycoddling and protecting, and the law should reflect this.

Repeal Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (chapter 4)

Chapter 4 of this Act makes particular reference to the sentencing of children who have come to the attention of criminal justice.  A primary objective being to 'prevent further offending' by the child. Although most would accept this is an honourable objective, we have to question the extent to which imposing local authority criminal justice interventions achieves this objective?   This act brings more and more children into criminal justice services, sometimes for very minor violations of the law and behaviours which would be much better addressed by family, schools and local communities, not criminal justice professionals as this act dictates.   

On the basis of 'prevention'  the act justifies immediate interventioninst orders being implemented (Referrral Orders) upon children for some very minor behaviours which could be, in many instances considered part of the normal cycle of adolescent development. Referral Orders require the involvement of criminal justice professionals making 'risk assessments' on the young person, their family and social circumstances and predicting what the risk of their future engagement in crime will be.    The development of these risk assessment tools has a very poor basis in scientific research, the extent to which policy and law makers have been convinced by flawed methodological studies is phenomenal and it appears to of justified a massive net widening of children into the criminal justice system, as well as being a heavily bureacratic process, hence reducing the actual time practitioners can spend with children. We remain with one of the highest incarceration rates of children within Europe and it seems many people are employed via the public purse to keep it this way, with this legislation dictating the processes that should be followed.  Legislation has evolved from the erroneous conception of risk assessment tools! How predictive are risk assessment tools really? To what extent could it be argued that the process imposes a very damning label upon developing adults, which could influence future behaviour?   What kind of society locks up children in order to teach them appropraite behaviour?  Incarceration increases risk, it does not reduce it, interventions requiring risk assessments increase risk whilst spinning a rhetoric of reducing it.   Fact; less children re-offend when warned than when inteventionist orders are imposed.     Some children will require intervention but not the current numbers that come into the system and getting it right is important.

It is a fact of life that young people push boundaries, that they will experiment and that they will take risks, they will also learn from experience and from the adults in their community who teach them to behave otherwise.   Risk assessment tools are fault finding exercises which undermine and minimise the scope for change within the developmental process.  These tools then influence sentencing outcomes, as is dictated within this legislation, sentencing lengths will be imposed in terms of the 'risk a young person is considered to present' rather than a sentence considered proprotional to the crime. Breach action is required if the young person does not attend with the frequency dictated and this can also lead to custodial sentences being imposed.   It is a sad day for justice when the opinions of professionals using flawed risk assessment tools influence sentencing more than the gravity of the crime they may have committed.  Save your children from this legislation, get rid of it!

Why is this idea important?

Chapter 4 of this Act makes particular reference to the sentencing of children who have come to the attention of criminal justice.  A primary objective being to 'prevent further offending' by the child. Although most would accept this is an honourable objective, we have to question the extent to which imposing local authority criminal justice interventions achieves this objective?   This act brings more and more children into criminal justice services, sometimes for very minor violations of the law and behaviours which would be much better addressed by family, schools and local communities, not criminal justice professionals as this act dictates.   

On the basis of 'prevention'  the act justifies immediate interventioninst orders being implemented (Referrral Orders) upon children for some very minor behaviours which could be, in many instances considered part of the normal cycle of adolescent development. Referral Orders require the involvement of criminal justice professionals making 'risk assessments' on the young person, their family and social circumstances and predicting what the risk of their future engagement in crime will be.    The development of these risk assessment tools has a very poor basis in scientific research, the extent to which policy and law makers have been convinced by flawed methodological studies is phenomenal and it appears to of justified a massive net widening of children into the criminal justice system, as well as being a heavily bureacratic process, hence reducing the actual time practitioners can spend with children. We remain with one of the highest incarceration rates of children within Europe and it seems many people are employed via the public purse to keep it this way, with this legislation dictating the processes that should be followed.  Legislation has evolved from the erroneous conception of risk assessment tools! How predictive are risk assessment tools really? To what extent could it be argued that the process imposes a very damning label upon developing adults, which could influence future behaviour?   What kind of society locks up children in order to teach them appropraite behaviour?  Incarceration increases risk, it does not reduce it, interventions requiring risk assessments increase risk whilst spinning a rhetoric of reducing it.   Fact; less children re-offend when warned than when inteventionist orders are imposed.     Some children will require intervention but not the current numbers that come into the system and getting it right is important.

It is a fact of life that young people push boundaries, that they will experiment and that they will take risks, they will also learn from experience and from the adults in their community who teach them to behave otherwise.   Risk assessment tools are fault finding exercises which undermine and minimise the scope for change within the developmental process.  These tools then influence sentencing outcomes, as is dictated within this legislation, sentencing lengths will be imposed in terms of the 'risk a young person is considered to present' rather than a sentence considered proprotional to the crime. Breach action is required if the young person does not attend with the frequency dictated and this can also lead to custodial sentences being imposed.   It is a sad day for justice when the opinions of professionals using flawed risk assessment tools influence sentencing more than the gravity of the crime they may have committed.  Save your children from this legislation, get rid of it!

Overturn unfair criteria of Criminal Injuries Board

As it stands in familial sexual abuse cases, if  the injury or sexual assault happened before October 1 1979 and you were living with that person as a member of their family, you are not entitled to claim.

This is a complete travesty of justice. How can a child who suffered sexual abuse on 30 Sept 1979 be any less deserving than a child who suffered 1 day later.

The child would in most cases have had no choice whatsoever as to whether they lived in the same house as their abuser.

Overturn this barbaric rule. There should be retrospective awards to cover all bases.

Why is this idea important?

As it stands in familial sexual abuse cases, if  the injury or sexual assault happened before October 1 1979 and you were living with that person as a member of their family, you are not entitled to claim.

This is a complete travesty of justice. How can a child who suffered sexual abuse on 30 Sept 1979 be any less deserving than a child who suffered 1 day later.

The child would in most cases have had no choice whatsoever as to whether they lived in the same house as their abuser.

Overturn this barbaric rule. There should be retrospective awards to cover all bases.

Health & Safety and Child Protection

I am fed up of hearing about Health and Safety reasons why this or that can’t be done. For example notices have recently gone up at our local household waste site saying anyone removing items will be prosecuted for theft! And yet when I challenged the Council (lots of items are thrown away into land-fill that could be re-used / recycled) they cited the Control of Pollution Act and health and safety (presumably in case I fall in the skip! Whilst retrieving something!!) Ian Quigley (Recycling & Trade Waste Manager) and Iain Bairstow both at Bradford Council are the jobs-worths responsible for upholding this piece of legislation!!

Health and Safety should be confined to factories and the workplace.

Another example – our children were not allowed to play in the snow at school over the winter in case they slipped!! Neither were the younger children allowed to play on a superb school playing field last year leading up to the summer – and I still don’t know why! Nor was I allowed to video or photograph the school nativity.

Does this come under Child Protection, which also needs to be looked at urgently and drives me to distraction. I took my 6 and 8 yr old boys swimming a few weeks ago and was told off for taking photos of them (I chose to carry on needless to say!) When I pointed out that they were my children, I was cited Child Protection!! Thank God the new Safeguarding Children Authority has been suspended – a step in the right direction but why does my husband have to be ‘checked’ to coach the local football juniors when all the parents are standing on the sidelines and some of the regular coaches are already CRB checked.

Please do something. I think that’s it until my next rant!

Why is this idea important?

I am fed up of hearing about Health and Safety reasons why this or that can’t be done. For example notices have recently gone up at our local household waste site saying anyone removing items will be prosecuted for theft! And yet when I challenged the Council (lots of items are thrown away into land-fill that could be re-used / recycled) they cited the Control of Pollution Act and health and safety (presumably in case I fall in the skip! Whilst retrieving something!!) Ian Quigley (Recycling & Trade Waste Manager) and Iain Bairstow both at Bradford Council are the jobs-worths responsible for upholding this piece of legislation!!

Health and Safety should be confined to factories and the workplace.

Another example – our children were not allowed to play in the snow at school over the winter in case they slipped!! Neither were the younger children allowed to play on a superb school playing field last year leading up to the summer – and I still don’t know why! Nor was I allowed to video or photograph the school nativity.

Does this come under Child Protection, which also needs to be looked at urgently and drives me to distraction. I took my 6 and 8 yr old boys swimming a few weeks ago and was told off for taking photos of them (I chose to carry on needless to say!) When I pointed out that they were my children, I was cited Child Protection!! Thank God the new Safeguarding Children Authority has been suspended – a step in the right direction but why does my husband have to be ‘checked’ to coach the local football juniors when all the parents are standing on the sidelines and some of the regular coaches are already CRB checked.

Please do something. I think that’s it until my next rant!

Change publishing laws and prevent sexually provocative pictures appearing in public.

The publishing laws that allow sexually provocative photographs to be on the front of newspapers should be changed to allow them only to be on the inside of the publication.  Newspapers are displayed in many public places without any regard for the civil liberties of the general public walking past.  If pornographic pictures are to be available to buy easily then that's fine; they should just be kept out of view of those children and adults who don't want to see them.

Why is this idea important?

The publishing laws that allow sexually provocative photographs to be on the front of newspapers should be changed to allow them only to be on the inside of the publication.  Newspapers are displayed in many public places without any regard for the civil liberties of the general public walking past.  If pornographic pictures are to be available to buy easily then that's fine; they should just be kept out of view of those children and adults who don't want to see them.

chemical chastrastion for paedophiles

simple law: – anyone who sexually abuses a child gets their genetics removed, personally i'd go for a rusty knife but to get it through parliment suggest the prescription of chemicals which reduces testosterone and makes the parts wither and become unusable.  Lets put child safety ahead of whishy washy liberal human rights PC brigade

 

i believe the french do this and it works well there

Why is this idea important?

simple law: – anyone who sexually abuses a child gets their genetics removed, personally i'd go for a rusty knife but to get it through parliment suggest the prescription of chemicals which reduces testosterone and makes the parts wither and become unusable.  Lets put child safety ahead of whishy washy liberal human rights PC brigade

 

i believe the french do this and it works well there

Lower the age of criminal responsibility to 7

7 is the accepted 'age of reason'. I'm tired of hearing people talk of under 12 year olds as if they wander around in a bubble of ignorance, unaware of right & wrong. This is not true. People just forget what being a child is like.

If kids are so incapable of knowing consequences of their actions etc then why are we putting them into schools at 4?? We expect them to do homework, obey teachers & school rules, not bully, learn a variety of subjects, take exams, perform in concerts etc but then argue that, criminally, they exist in some kind of moral vacuum!!

Having myself been subjected to incredibly vile & evil wrongdoings by a 10 year old (who knew exactly what they were doing) when I was 6 the last thing I'd want is to see the age raised to 12 or above. It's naive insanity.

Why is this idea important?

7 is the accepted 'age of reason'. I'm tired of hearing people talk of under 12 year olds as if they wander around in a bubble of ignorance, unaware of right & wrong. This is not true. People just forget what being a child is like.

If kids are so incapable of knowing consequences of their actions etc then why are we putting them into schools at 4?? We expect them to do homework, obey teachers & school rules, not bully, learn a variety of subjects, take exams, perform in concerts etc but then argue that, criminally, they exist in some kind of moral vacuum!!

Having myself been subjected to incredibly vile & evil wrongdoings by a 10 year old (who knew exactly what they were doing) when I was 6 the last thing I'd want is to see the age raised to 12 or above. It's naive insanity.

Education to prevent Paedophilia

I think that the Religious Education in schools should be replaced with a subject that educates children from day one about paedophilia so that they recognise it and know what to do if they experience paedophilia. Paedophilia is more common than society realises (remember, sex-offenders do keep it secret) and defenseless little people are being hurt because they are naive enough to believe that, for instance, 'all daddies do this to their children' and dont say anything. If they were educated about this, they would be able to put an end to it before it begins. This is not unrealistic at all, it is not costly, it does not disrupt the national curriculum, it is useful in a realistic world rather than a load of make-believe. It is simple plus think of the effectiveness of it.

Why is this idea important?

I think that the Religious Education in schools should be replaced with a subject that educates children from day one about paedophilia so that they recognise it and know what to do if they experience paedophilia. Paedophilia is more common than society realises (remember, sex-offenders do keep it secret) and defenseless little people are being hurt because they are naive enough to believe that, for instance, 'all daddies do this to their children' and dont say anything. If they were educated about this, they would be able to put an end to it before it begins. This is not unrealistic at all, it is not costly, it does not disrupt the national curriculum, it is useful in a realistic world rather than a load of make-believe. It is simple plus think of the effectiveness of it.

Amend Child Employment and children in entertainment regulations

These regulations are outdated now and need looking at and amending. Someone did look at the children in entertainmenmt regs before the last election but it has been filed away I believe. The child Employment regulations in the Children act 1933 need bringing up to date.

Why is this idea important?

These regulations are outdated now and need looking at and amending. Someone did look at the children in entertainmenmt regs before the last election but it has been filed away I believe. The child Employment regulations in the Children act 1933 need bringing up to date.

False accusations, which are unfounded, against teachers should be deleted and have a limited shelf life

Legislation that allows reports on false accusations, of teachers, that are classed as unfounded to be allowed to be kept until the teacher is 65 and needs to be stated during new job application by references infringe the rights of innocent teachers and should be removed, or ammended to state that such reports are deleted after 6 months – 1 year.

Why is this idea important?

Legislation that allows reports on false accusations, of teachers, that are classed as unfounded to be allowed to be kept until the teacher is 65 and needs to be stated during new job application by references infringe the rights of innocent teachers and should be removed, or ammended to state that such reports are deleted after 6 months – 1 year.

Access to Paedophile lists

Why do parents even grandparents have to have a CRB check if they are involved in supervising or driving  kids to sporting events and other activities that kids participate in. Surely it would be more practical and less costly if designated people within organisations, such as schools, football clubs etc, had access to the list and were able to do these checks. 

 The lists give names of people who have offended. It doesnt give protection against  the Paedophile who is yet to be caught.   That being the case, is there any value in these checks at all, other than another indirect form of taxation.  The concept of parents and grandparents  having to prove they are not paedophiles is so unbelievably stupid and insulting.

Why is this idea important?

Why do parents even grandparents have to have a CRB check if they are involved in supervising or driving  kids to sporting events and other activities that kids participate in. Surely it would be more practical and less costly if designated people within organisations, such as schools, football clubs etc, had access to the list and were able to do these checks. 

 The lists give names of people who have offended. It doesnt give protection against  the Paedophile who is yet to be caught.   That being the case, is there any value in these checks at all, other than another indirect form of taxation.  The concept of parents and grandparents  having to prove they are not paedophiles is so unbelievably stupid and insulting.

Child Protection laws and guidance need to be sensible to allow communities to engage.

Children need to be kept safe. There's no question about that. But I think that in the past fifteen years we have moved towards overprotection. The biggest damage we are doing is creating a society with an increased view that anyone who even talks to a child needs to be a parent or a qualified worker. We are breaking down communities. Children's centres have meant a gap between young and old. Our paranoia has meant that nowadays children do not have natural opportunities to engage with the older generation.

Consider this… If young people do not have opportunities to engage in appropriate, fun and meaningful ways with the older generation, then how will they ever learn to value the elderly? If they do not value the elderly then we create a society where young people will 'live for now and not care to invest in their own futures, let alone care for us when we get older!!'. The social and economic impact is colossal.

We need to put child protection into perspective and make sure that by keeping children 'safe' we are not in fact doing them greater damage in the long term.

Why is this idea important?

Children need to be kept safe. There's no question about that. But I think that in the past fifteen years we have moved towards overprotection. The biggest damage we are doing is creating a society with an increased view that anyone who even talks to a child needs to be a parent or a qualified worker. We are breaking down communities. Children's centres have meant a gap between young and old. Our paranoia has meant that nowadays children do not have natural opportunities to engage with the older generation.

Consider this… If young people do not have opportunities to engage in appropriate, fun and meaningful ways with the older generation, then how will they ever learn to value the elderly? If they do not value the elderly then we create a society where young people will 'live for now and not care to invest in their own futures, let alone care for us when we get older!!'. The social and economic impact is colossal.

We need to put child protection into perspective and make sure that by keeping children 'safe' we are not in fact doing them greater damage in the long term.

REFORM THE CRB CHECKS

The CRB was put together in haste and was altered later to allow disclosure of information from Police Forces to stop the employment of persons liable to cause harm to children and vulnerable adults. What this meant for tens of thousands of people who had no convictions whatsoever  who may have been arrested and questioned and then released without any charge was an arrest record which was retained by the police and then disclosed to the CRB when an application was made for employment. The result of any CRB check would then disclose that the person was arrested based on allegations brought by anyone who had a grudge but found to be groundless.Any subsequent potential employment applied for would then be subject to review and usually rejected. Many people may not even realise that this information has been disclosed even though they have answered all questions on the CRB truthfully about not having any convictions. I feel that this an infringement of anyones civil liberty and undermines the notion that anyone is innocent until "proven" guilty.

Anyone who has employment which involves coming into contact with children or vulnerable adults are caught in this potential trap which would lead to a possible dismissal from employment and backlisted from any further employment. The range of employment is not restricted to teaching,care or nursing,it can also affect humble taxi drivers and other employment. Employers are obviously in a difficult position and even the mention of an arrest which could be entirely explained will result in a job rejection or possible dismissal because employers do not want to be in the limelight of employing a possible abuser.

The legislation is flawed and discriminates against the innocent not the guilty. Those who wish to abuse can always find a way to do so.The CRB was just yet another ill thought out piece of legislation to appease the baying mob through very unfortunate and terrible events.This country is a democracy and such legislation should have been put before the people not the press.

Why is this idea important?

The CRB was put together in haste and was altered later to allow disclosure of information from Police Forces to stop the employment of persons liable to cause harm to children and vulnerable adults. What this meant for tens of thousands of people who had no convictions whatsoever  who may have been arrested and questioned and then released without any charge was an arrest record which was retained by the police and then disclosed to the CRB when an application was made for employment. The result of any CRB check would then disclose that the person was arrested based on allegations brought by anyone who had a grudge but found to be groundless.Any subsequent potential employment applied for would then be subject to review and usually rejected. Many people may not even realise that this information has been disclosed even though they have answered all questions on the CRB truthfully about not having any convictions. I feel that this an infringement of anyones civil liberty and undermines the notion that anyone is innocent until "proven" guilty.

Anyone who has employment which involves coming into contact with children or vulnerable adults are caught in this potential trap which would lead to a possible dismissal from employment and backlisted from any further employment. The range of employment is not restricted to teaching,care or nursing,it can also affect humble taxi drivers and other employment. Employers are obviously in a difficult position and even the mention of an arrest which could be entirely explained will result in a job rejection or possible dismissal because employers do not want to be in the limelight of employing a possible abuser.

The legislation is flawed and discriminates against the innocent not the guilty. Those who wish to abuse can always find a way to do so.The CRB was just yet another ill thought out piece of legislation to appease the baying mob through very unfortunate and terrible events.This country is a democracy and such legislation should have been put before the people not the press.

Abolish the Independent Safeguarding Authority

Over-zealous child protection laws are poisoning the relationship between adults (particularly men) and children. The vetting of adults in the interest of child protection is now out of all proportion to the risks faced by young people. These rules start from the assumption that, if you want to work with children, there may be something suspect about you.

Such procedures do little to protect children from the small number of individuals who would do them harm. Instead, they damage adult-child relations and undermine the capacity of adults to contribute to children’s welfare. Sadly, sexual deviance is not new and no amount of repressive, punitive legislation or regulatory fascism will stop it, but it could ruin the lives of innocent people, including parents, teachers and volunteers (if there are any left), who find themselves under unwarranted suspicion.

Why is this idea important?

Over-zealous child protection laws are poisoning the relationship between adults (particularly men) and children. The vetting of adults in the interest of child protection is now out of all proportion to the risks faced by young people. These rules start from the assumption that, if you want to work with children, there may be something suspect about you.

Such procedures do little to protect children from the small number of individuals who would do them harm. Instead, they damage adult-child relations and undermine the capacity of adults to contribute to children’s welfare. Sadly, sexual deviance is not new and no amount of repressive, punitive legislation or regulatory fascism will stop it, but it could ruin the lives of innocent people, including parents, teachers and volunteers (if there are any left), who find themselves under unwarranted suspicion.

Honour children’s equal right to protection from assault

Remove the defence of 'reasonable punishment' (Section 58, Children Act 2004) in order to respect children's rights and honour the UK's responsibilities under the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

Why is this idea important?

Remove the defence of 'reasonable punishment' (Section 58, Children Act 2004) in order to respect children's rights and honour the UK's responsibilities under the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child.