Parents banned from supervising children in park. Outrageous

sparklinglime

That is crazy. I always supervised my lot when they were little in a playground, and would not want a play-ranger to do the job for me.

We had Scout training the other weekend and had a child protection course. The woman who ran it made it very clear that those of us who give children a lift to Scouts mean we are flouting Scout rules. I give my son's best friend a lift, and take the 'other' Cub Leader's daughter home - she does Explorer's with my daughter.

I made it plain that I help as a parent and not as a leader, but she felt it made no odds!

We're still going to help out with lifts. I just won't wear my Necker until I get into the hut!

Posted on: October 28, 2009 - 5:11pm

Claire-Louise

This article seems way over the top to me. I had to advise pre-schools and afterschool clubs about safeguarding children and CRB checks are only essential if the parents/adults are to be sole carers of the children but if there are qualified and police checked members of staff on duty then there is no reason why parents can't be there too. Health and Safety is getting so extreme now that it seems to me there is going to be a huge revolt and people just won't pay attention to any of it.
Crazy
C-L

Posted on: October 28, 2009 - 6:54pm

harissa

One of my home-educating friends has just sent me this petition link:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Home-ed-families/#detail

I have signed it as it is a plea for supporting the role of parents, not just those who home educate. It makes a lot of points which have been discussed on this forum in various discussions.

Posted on: November 24, 2009 - 9:20pm

sparklinglime

Yep. That's a good one. Not a bad number of signatures, either.

Posted on: November 24, 2009 - 11:21pm

lindsaygii

My view on the increase in CRB checking (which by the way, would tell you anything a person ever did, even if they just got caught smoking a spliff when they were 18...) is that people with good intentions will get demotivated by all the suspicion and paperwork. Eventually the only people left who can be bothered to go through all the hoops will be the paedophiles. Because, let's face it, do we really think they all have criminal records??

Posted on: November 25, 2009 - 9:08pm

Louise

Parenting specialist

I particularly like the point the petition makes that resources should be concentrated on those cases where a child is at risk rather than diluting them in routine monitoring procedures

Posted on: November 26, 2009 - 8:32am

sparklinglime

lindsaygii wrote:

My view on the increase in CRB checking (which by the way, would tell you anything a person ever did, even if they just got caught smoking a spliff when they were 18...) is that people with good intentions will get demotivated by all the suspicion and paperwork. Eventually the only people left who can be bothered to go through all the hoops will be the paedophiles. Because, let's face it, do we really think they all have criminal records??

Gosh, quite a sweeping statement.

While yes, it only can see what someone has been charged with doing, it does mean the body checking gets the chance to ask the applicant to explain the situation. It doesn't automatically rule out anyone.

All the ones who have been CRBd for the Scouts haven't objected at all. And hopefully, none of us - or me - are paedophiles.

Posted on: November 26, 2009 - 6:11pm

Claire-Louise

In terms of employing someone to work in the Early Years sector, nothing in terms of checking is going to be totally full proof and people who are devious will always find a way round these checks, but they do provide an initial deterrant and if use correctly, in addition to references, interviews and probation work periods, then do provide some form of safety. As from Ocotber of this year the Independent Safeguarding Authority has come into being to work along side CRB checks to try to improve the safety of children, you can find out more here:
http://www.isa-gov.org.uk/
Still getting parents checked in the park is ludicrous!
C-L

Posted on: November 27, 2009 - 8:48pm

lindsaygii

sparklinglime - yeah, quite sweeping! ;) I'm not against the idea of making checks, I just think we're on a child protection rollercoaster we might not be able to get off again. So many of the bad cases in recent times have been people who *were* checked, but either they had no record or the checks failed... I'm just not at all convinced we're going the right way with all this.

Posted on: November 27, 2009 - 9:36pm

sparklinglime

lindsaygii wrote:

sparklinglime - yeah, quite sweeping! ;) I'm not against the idea of making checks, I just think we're on a child protection rollercoaster we might not be able to get off again. So many of the bad cases in recent times have been people who *were* checked, but either they had no record or the checks failed... I'm just not at all convinced we're going the right way with all this.

Probably not, but it does serve as some reassurance to the parents, I guess.

It has gone to far, I agree. Yet within certain parameters, I agree with it. It's the parents driving children to/from events to help I strongly object to.

Posted on: November 28, 2009 - 3:25pm