I do struggle to understand why they’ve used a picture of the victim above the heading of “Guilty”. Or perhaps I’m just being pedantic. . .
As for the main headline, I assumed that was already the case? I know some of the proposed child protection checks are rather heavy handed, but having surely these checks are necessary if a child is going to be living in a stranger’s home for a prolonged length of time?
I wonder if the Daily Mail has a bit of a bee in their bonnet for any particular reason, If someone has nothing to hide they really have nothing to fear do they! Maybe someone does with all that outrage at the DM, would you leave your children with a DM reader? I wouldn’t!
>If someone has nothing to hide they really have nothing to fear do they!
No, that’s really not true with the CRB system:
Firstly, for any purpose involving children there are no spent convictions. This means that a person cautioned for shoplifting at age 17 will have this fact show up.
Secondly, after the ludicrous witch-hunt after Soham, for an enhanced CRB check even unsubstantiated allegations show up on the record.
And if they didn’t do this and someone with previous convictions got the chance to be in contact with kids then the tabloids would have a field day.
Hypocrisy of the highest order
Another ‘Now…’ story.
Why don’t they try selling DVD’s and giving the paper away free?.
But we’d want those dirty foreigners checked, to make sure Sophie’s not staying with a Billy Bonce, wouldn’t we?
Who is that in the picture in the bottom left corner?
On the one hand, they look a bit guilty. But on the other, they look like they’ve eaten some “abortion pills”.
I do struggle to understand why they’ve used a picture of the victim above the heading of “Guilty”. Or perhaps I’m just being pedantic. . .
As for the main headline, I assumed that was already the case? I know some of the proposed child protection checks are rather heavy handed, but having surely these checks are necessary if a child is going to be living in a stranger’s home for a prolonged length of time?
Paranoia.
Damn- looks like the days of abusing little frogs and krauts are about to come to an end!
I wonder if the Daily Mail has a bit of a bee in their bonnet for any particular reason, If someone has nothing to hide they really have nothing to fear do they! Maybe someone does with all that outrage at the DM, would you leave your children with a DM reader? I wouldn’t!
>If someone has nothing to hide they really have nothing to fear do they!
No, that’s really not true with the CRB system:
Firstly, for any purpose involving children there are no spent convictions. This means that a person cautioned for shoplifting at age 17 will have this fact show up.
Secondly, after the ludicrous witch-hunt after Soham, for an enhanced CRB check even unsubstantiated allegations show up on the record.
And as shown by that nursery worker case, they can make the system as intrusive as they can, and it still doesn’t work.
can i ask what the end game is for all you sad leftie type people,your game is up ,we have seen through you.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me if you’re going to have someones elses child staying in your home for a length of time a CRB check is required.
The CRB system sucks, but this particular use of it is about as reasonable as they come. What are the daily mail bitching about?