Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Authorities Ban 'Lonely' People From Working With Children

Posted by samzenpus on from the only-the-lonely-know-this-feelin-aint-right dept.

A UK government organization, The Independent Safeguarding Authority, has started a new anti-paedophile database that takes into account lifestyles, relationships and beliefs when assessing the backgrounds of applicants, instead of just the usual criminal record check. The new guidelines allow the agency to consider unproven allegations made in newspaper reports, allegations from members of the public, as well as monitoring internet chatrooms and websites such as Facebook for evidence to use against applicants. Anyone judged to be a danger because of things like having no friends, or having a complicated private life, is banned from working with children, the homeless, or the elderly.

34 comments

  1. Why prevent them from working with children? by oldspewey · · Score: 1

    Seems like a bit of a half-measure to just prevent socially awkward people and other "deviants" from working with children or the elderly. Shouldn't all the nonconformists just be summarily executed?

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    1. Re:Why prevent them from working with children? by julesh · · Score: 1

      You have to understand that this was brought into place after Ian Huntley, who was a socially awkward person about whom there were several such unproven allegations, raped and killed two kids while working at the school they attended. This is specifically designed as a measure that would have prevented him from doing this.

    2. Re:Why prevent them from working with children? by DangerFace · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since this is in Idle and only three poeple are gonna read it I can't be bothered to find a reference, but I read an interview a while ago with a head teacher who was well liked and generally respected - that is, until someone made an allegation of sexual indecency or some such against him. They later admitted it was a complete fabrication, and so the guy went to court to have the whole thing wiped from his record so he could work with kids again. The judge basically said that it was clear he was innocent, the allegations had made no sense, there were witnesses who saw them in different places at the time it was meant to have happened etcetera, but that innocence has nothing to do with it. The law says that suspicions must be logged, and that means that any school that hired him would be liable to all sorts of lawyering, and probably lose its liability insurance and stuff.

      Fascinating extra fact: children (and adults, for that matter) are much more likely to be sexually assaulted, kidnapped and murdered by close relatives or family friends than random loners. By the logic most people seem to use these days, that means children should be removed from their parents at birth, and rotated between foster carers every fortnight.

      --
      Be smart, help people!
    3. Re:Why prevent them from working with children? by Noren · · Score: 1

      The modest proposal of separating children from those most likely to harm them was examined in detail by South Park.

    4. Re:Why prevent them from working with children? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      There's nothing to understand about it. It's equivalent to saying that schools shouldn't have janitors.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    5. Re:Why prevent them from working with children? by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Understood. In light of that, I suggest several other metrics that will be equally valuable:

      90% of all serial killers are male. So males are disqualified.

      84% of serial killers are caucasian, so none of them.

      100% of child abusers have had contact with children, so ban anyone who has ever had contact with children.

      Given that, taking on the identity of a non-white female who has never had contact with a child would be the perfect cover. Nobody would ever suspect such a person of being a serial killing child abuser. It would be nearly a cloak of invisibility, so we can't allow non-white women who have had no contact with children anywhere near children either.

      So, the search is on for the perfect childcare expert, a black hermaphrodite with an uncomplicated personal life. Oh, and he/she must never have been a clown.

    6. Re:Why prevent them from working with children? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      So, a civil, job related version of "guilty until proven innocent" (except there is no method to prove ones self against this) is acceptable in today's society??

      Kinda of like pre-crime screening? You cannot do things now because you MIGHT do something.

      Man..I'm glad I'm getting older and will be gone before this progresses to what I foresee as being a very scary reality in the coming future.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Why prevent them from working with children? by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that loners generally tend to leave people alone, while social people tend to bully, date rape, stalk, groupthink, and conspire to deny people employment who are different from themselves.

    8. Re:Why prevent them from working with children? by rakslice · · Score: 1

      Why do I have to understand that? Is it relevant somehow? I mean, I don't know anyone with a time machine...

    9. Re:Why prevent them from working with children? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Fascinating extra fact: children (and adults, for that matter) are much more likely to be sexually assaulted, kidnapped and murdered by close relatives or family friends than random loners.

      Are they SURE of that? I am guessing that is more likely that those who are close and do it, likely to be caught. OTH, a total stranger could get by with it. I am thinking Jon Bonnet Ramsey as well as possibly that British couple in Spain (sad for all). I am guessing that it was a stranger that did these actions.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    10. Re:Why prevent them from working with children? by digitig · · Score: 1

      Premise 1: Ian Huntley was a socially awkward person.
      Premise 2: Ian Huntley was a child-killer
      Conclusion: Socially awkward people are child-killers.
      Logic 101, anybody?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    11. Re:Why prevent them from working with children? by DangerFace · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are very, very sure of that - it isn't a 49/51 split, it's a 90/10 thing. Also, it's just logical - if you want to have sex with a girl, you try to go to the same places, make friends with with her friends and so on. If you want to have sex with a child, marry their single mother, make friends with their parents, etc.

      If by "that British couple in Spain" you mean the parents of Madeleine McCann, you are talking about people who should have lost their daughter - just to the authorities, not the reaper. There is no doubt that they were guilty of criminal negligence, but Portugal lacks the laws to prosecute foreign nationals for negligence and Britain gave up trying to find a way after the red-tops mounted a campaign, payed for by the vast McCann marketing machine.

      In case anyone is too lazy to do a quick wiki search, I'll sum up what happened here: the McCann adults went out to a restaurant, leaving their children alone and unsupervised in the hotel room, despite there being creche and babysitting facilities easily available. Their child is now dead. The Portugese police fucked up the whole investigation, and thanks to the McCanns spending literally millions of pounds sterling on marketing there were sightings of Maddy from Thailand to Florida, and everywhere inbetween. Thanks to police incompetence, most of the possible forensic evidence was (or wasn't, depending on whether it existed) destroyed, meaning that no one could tell whether Maddy had died in the hotel room and been hidden by her parents, or been taken by some crazy paedophile (who would have seen the marketing campaign and most likely murdered her there and then), or something else entirely.

      I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in the UK this was massive news for over a year. It was even huge news when one marketing guy they'd hired quit over what he described as 'irregularities', but then they hired a different marketing consultant and the story magically disappeared. There appear to only be two lessons to be learnt from this whole debacle: that you shouldn't leave young children on their own for hours at a time, and that if you do commit criminal negligence you should hire a marketing consultant.

      --
      Be smart, help people!
    12. Re:Why prevent them from working with children? by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1

      Premise 1: Ian Huntley was a socially awkward person. Premise 2: Ian Huntley was a child-killer Conclusion: Socially awkward people are child-killers. Logic 101, anybody?

      If he was breast-fed, then... breast-fed people are child-killers.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
    13. Re:Why prevent them from working with children? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point of pedantry: no evidence was ever produced that Ian Huntley raped Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman before he murdered them, or that the crime had a sexual motive at all.

  2. Um... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has anybody out there ever seen a school janitor who wasn't a socially awkward misfit??? If they had people skills, they'd have a better job...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The custodians at various schools I attended were always some of the kindest, wisest folks around.

    2. Re:Um... by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      Has anybody out there ever seen a school janitor who wasn't a socially awkward misfit??? If they had people skills, they'd have a better job...

      The custodians at various schools I attended were always some of the kindest, wisest folks around.

      By "people skills" I think he meant people who aren't able, or morally liable, to sell people a bill of goods on their employment records or resumes, though I suspect "janitors" who work in schools would probably need to go through this "vetting" process as well. It's not really about "pedophilia". Britain's democratic and civil decline started before the think-of-the-children hype. If you believe this is about catching "pedophiles" then you are as dumb as the social engineers think you are.

    3. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anybody out there ever seen a school janitor who wasn't a socially awkward misfit??? If they had people skills, they'd have a better job...

      This is a downright asinine assumption. My mother in law is a school janitor, and you'd never meet someone with better people skills.

      Grow up.

    4. Re:Um... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Actually, the janitor at my high school was a nice old retired farmer named Cecil.  He's retired from the school as well now, not very well educated & somewhat racist (most septuagenarian southerners are, unfortunately) but he's kind, a family man & has had a pretty normal life for someone growing up as he did.  His family has been friends with mine for several years now & I built his wife a PC a couple of years back.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    5. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fraz?

  3. Par for the course. by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

    If you want to impose anything that has no logic to it or infringes basic human rights all you have to do is claim it is "for the children" and you get a free pass.

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  4. Read original newspaper article with caution... by fantomas · · Score: 2, Informative

    For non UK readers, you need to be a little cautious with this typical slashdot attention grabbing headline. The newspaper quoted is the right-wing Daily Telegraph often referred to as the newspaper of the Tory (Conservative) Party, the party in opposition. It will generally pick a fight with any legislation put up by the current nominally left wing government. It's probably worth reading the article carefully and picking out the "could"'s and "maybe"'s and other similar phrases. So when they talk about subjective evidence maybe being used, you have to bear in mind this is what judges do in legal cases anyway.

    The irony being noted in the UK about the media cries against this legislation (further checking of people who might work with children) is that it came about partly because the very same newspapers made a lot of noise a few years ago when a couple of children were tragically killed by an unstable person who had a job working with children and hadn't been identified by the vetting processes at the time. The media shouted loudly that "something should be done" and "more checks need to be put in place to stop this happening again". And now the government has agreed and proposed for more checks, the same papers are crying "nanny state, too much bureaucracy!". Ironic.

    1. Re:Read original newspaper article with caution... by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      It seems that all of the commentators on the BBC HYS (Have Your Say) website must be Tory voters then. I waded through 14 pages of opposition to this legislation before I came across a post supporting it. Personally I think it is insane bureaucracy that is going to raise 11.3 Million x £64 or about $500M and employ 2000 people. It also ensures that the pool of citizen volunteers who interact with children will disappear leaving only State services - which is obviously just what the loony socialists in the mostly capitalist Labour party must be drooling over - and the these days mostly socialist Tory party voted for by capitalist voters doesn't like.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    2. Re:Read original newspaper article with caution... by Deb-fanboy · · Score: 1
      Yes and they both make good stories:

      Good story number one Government not doing enough to protect our children

      Good story number two Overbearing government puts red tape obstacle in path of those working with children

      I feel that society is now becoming paranoid about risks to children, but it is not the government that causes this, in fact I believe that it is a result of the magnification effect of salacious reporting in the media.

    3. Re:Read original newspaper article with caution... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      The media shouted loudly that "something should be done" and "more checks need to be put in place to stop this happening again". And now the government has agreed and proposed for more checks, the same papers are crying "nanny state, too much bureaucracy!". Ironic.

      It's been a while since the last big, juicy pedophile headline, and I'll bet that infuriates the blocklieters that support this legislation no end. Their last major hurrah was Madeleine McCann and that went so overboard that I think the public has become quite cloyed at the whole business. The tepid response to the Dugard case could be the first sign that the public is finally becoming bored with child molestation stories.

      At least, that's what I'd like to think. In reality, the next three year old's abduction will the viewing public the arousing dose of outrage it so craves.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  5. Gordon Brown banned as well by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

    Obviously he leads a complicated lifestyle.

    He looks a bit freaky (have you seen the way he smiles?), and that one blind eye is bound to be caused by someone emptying a can of maze into it.

    He has no friends and is less popular than Neville Chamberlain was at the beginning of World War 2.

  6. Compatible personality types for child care by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

    According to the article, if you are a morally upright and responsible person then you will never be hired by those organizations legally required to screen people for "pedophilia".

    On the other hand, they (seem to) value "average" and successful personality types;
    - People who are sycophants
    - People who gossip and spread rumors (i.e. people who socialize)
    - People who are constantly exposed to groupthink and value it as a social good
    - People who accept witch hunts as a normalizing part of society
    - People who value prejudice
    - People who value ignorance
    - People who accept peer pressure and the group as something good, and who have prejudice and malice towards people who don't value their way of thinking and behaving

    So only "anti-social" people get to work with children, but pro-social people who are loners don't get to work with children. It's interesting that people who generally tend to get arrested for having sex with children also tend to be very sociable. Most loners don't hang around with people because they don't want to be influenced by evil or bullied by the socialites. It's the social people, like priests and teachers and police officers, who tend to have an interest in children. These social people will continue to get the jobs, and these social people are also the ones who gossip and rumor-monger, and so the problem will only get worse.

    1. Re:Compatible personality types for child care by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that people who generally tend to get arrested for having sex with children also tend to be very sociable.

      I am not sure that this is true, but the loners go for attacks like bundling kids off the streat into the back of vans, not the sort of thing this vetting would have any affect on. Certainly the ones that do infiltrate positions of trust are mostly sociable.

    2. Re:Compatible personality types for child care by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      but the loners go for attacks like bundling kids off the streat into the back of vans

      I've read this statistic more than once that rapists (whether their interest is children or not, tend to be social. It certainly fits in with the casual observations that I've made from news stories.) Some of the most heinous and sadistic killers often have a wife and kids and are pillars of their community; the type of people who would easily get jobs as police officers, day care workers, etc. Though it's odd, I never tend to trust people who smile a lot because I've always found these people to be dishonest and unreliable, but they're the same people who tend to get promoted into management or supervisory positions, they're also the sort of people you hear about on the news, "He was a well respected family man..." (if they do ever get caught and exposed for what they are).

  7. Wow.. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

    .. The UK fucking sucks.  I don't know how you people can stand living in the prequel to Orwell's nightmare.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
    1. Re:Wow.. by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, good thing the US don't do anything crazy either

    2. Re:Wow.. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      You don't know much about UK psychology do you. We are happiest when we have something to moan about. I for one am looking forward to the sequel to Orwell's nightmare. It has already started, 90% of the population only know of "Big Brother" as a TV show, and airstrip one is available for hire for both bombing raids and extraordinary rendition.