Re: Vetting gone Mad

5 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Al Grant

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 5:35:55 PM11/29/09
to
On 29 Nov, 19:37, "Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}" <noon...@llondel.org>
wrote:
> Perhaps it needs a large number of parents to stand up and declare that
> enough is enough and withdraw their children from the school activities as a
> message to the PC brigade. Or are we really all that dangerous to children?

Without vetting, we'd never know, would we?

What's your point? That among several hundred parents
there won't be at least one who you wouldn't want
supervising your child?

Or that the head teacher should deal with the risk by
selecting the nice middle-class mums, on the principle that
they are all obviously above suspicion?

Guardian readers are scum

unread,
Nov 29, 2009, 6:11:51 PM11/29/09
to

"> Or that the head teacher should deal with the risk by
> selecting the nice middle-class mums, on the principle that
> they are all obviously above suspicion?

Sounds reasonable.


Message has been deleted

Naich

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 4:18:07 AM11/30/09
to
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} wrote:

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6936351.ece
>
> "Graham McArthur, headmaster of Somersham primary school in Cambridgeshire,
> said checks on the two dozen parents volunteering to walk his 330 pupils to
> the carol service at nearby St John?s church on December 17 were necessary ?
> even though they will be accompanied by teachers and a police community
> support escort when crossing the road. "
>
> If you want to accompany your child in any school Christmas-related
> activities then you'd better get yourself vetted.


>
> Perhaps it needs a large number of parents to stand up and declare that
> enough is enough and withdraw their children from the school activities as a
> message to the PC brigade. Or are we really all that dangerous to children?

What is the number for the PC brigade? Do I dial 999 and ask for them?
Are they allowed to go through red lights, and would I get prosecuted if I
went over the line to allow one of their cars through on the way to a
shout?

Naich.
--
http://naich.net ..... My rubbish blog
http://asshol.es ..... Stupidity in pictures
http://sodwork.com ... A waste of time
Motto: Early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

Al Grant

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 4:26:18 AM11/30/09
to
On 30 Nov, 06:58, "Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}" <noon...@llondel.org>
wrote:
> We're teaching our children that adults are not to be trusted under any
> circumstances

No we're not. Vetting is the exact opposite of jumping
to conclusions.

Brian Watson

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 4:35:37 AM11/30/09
to
Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6936351.ece
>
> "Graham McArthur, headmaster of Somersham primary school in
> Cambridgeshire, said checks on the two dozen parents volunteering to
> walk his 330 pupils to the carol service at nearby St John?s church
> on December 17 were necessary ? even though they will be accompanied
> by teachers and a police community support escort when crossing the
> road. "
>
> If you want to accompany your child in any school Christmas-related
> activities then you'd better get yourself vetted.
>
> Perhaps it needs a large number of parents to stand up and declare
> that enough is enough and withdraw their children from the school
> activities as a message to the PC brigade. Or are we really all that
> dangerous to children?

I have spoken to the CRB about this sort of nonsense and there is NO legal
requirement for adults who work with children to be CRB checked.

HOWEVER (and it's a big one), it can be a requirement of employment and THAT
is what requires the Head and his staff to be CRB checked.

In other words, the accompanying parents do NOT need to be checked because
they are not employed by the education authority.

The Head is being needlessly over-cautious and over-protective, IMO.
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
www.imagebus.co.uk/shop


Brian Watson

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 4:36:24 AM11/30/09
to
Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} wrote:
> Al Grant wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 29 Nov, 19:37, "Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}" <noon...@llondel.org>
>> wrote:
>>> Perhaps it needs a large number of parents to stand up and declare
>>> that enough is enough and withdraw their children from the school
>>> activities as a message to the PC brigade. Or are we really all
>>> that dangerous to children?
>>
>> Without vetting, we'd never know, would we?
>>
>> What's your point? That among several hundred parents
>> there won't be at least one who you wouldn't want
>> supervising your child?
>>
> Why not apply common sense (the least common of the senses) and
> realise that a one-off ten-minute walk in the presence of all the
> other adults is less likely to be a problem than the false sense of
> security created when people are in possession of a piece of paper
> that merely confirms that they haven't been caught doing anything bad.

>
> We're teaching our children that adults are not to be trusted under
> any circumstances, and that is going to cause more harm in the longer
> term.

Hear, hear.

Brian Watson

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 4:39:11 AM11/30/09
to

It presumes a significant reason for suspicion and plays to the "what have
you got to hide?" mentality when anyone challenges it.

Cwatters

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 4:42:56 AM11/30/09
to

"Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}" <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote in message
news:t3vau6-...@llondel.org...

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6936351.ece
>
> "Graham McArthur, headmaster of Somersham primary school in
> Cambridgeshire,
> said checks on the two dozen parents volunteering to walk his 330 pupils
> to
> the carol service at nearby St John?s church on December 17 were necessary
> ?
> even though they will be accompanied by teachers and a police community
> support escort when crossing the road. "
>
> If you want to accompany your child in any school Christmas-related
> activities then you'd better get yourself vetted.
>
> Perhaps it needs a large number of parents to stand up and declare that
> enough is enough and withdraw their children from the school activities as
> a
> message to the PC brigade. Or are we really all that dangerous to
> children?
> --
> Dave
>

This might be out of date but there are penalties for people carrying out
unnecessary checks. The school can get billed for what would normally be a
free check..

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/third_sector/assets/CRB%20final.pdf

Selected quotes (my ***)

In general terms however, there is no legal requirement to CRB check
volunteers. Unless this volunteering is in a 'regulated' setting such as a
care home or a school and even then only when the volunteer has regular
contact with either vulnerable adults or children.

There is anecdotal evidence that a minority of organisations are
undertaking CRB checks on all volunteers without properly evaluating risk,
and where
there is no legal or other reason to do so. This approach itself carries two
risks. Firstly, that potential volunteers, particularly those with past
convictions,
may be put off from volunteering with an organisation that they believe is
taking a disproportionate approach to CRB checks. Secondly,
*** organisations may be in breach of the CRB Code of Practice and liable to
possible sanctions, which could include deregistration. They may also be
invoiced retrospectively for volunteer checks ***. The CRB carries out
random audits of checks that are marked as 'volunteer' to ensure that they
are within the deinition of volunteering described in Section 2 and that
there is a rationale for undertaking the check.


Fevric J. Glandules

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 4:47:36 AM11/30/09
to
Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} wrote:

> We're teaching our children that adults are not to be trusted under any

> circumstances, and that is going to cause more harm in the longer term.

Indeed, and I believe there's already been cases of children failing to
seek help because they've been taught not to talk to strangers - under
any circumstances. I think it was Bruce Schneier who pointed out the
enormous difference between a stranger approaching a child, and a child
choosing an adult to approach and talk to.

Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 4:55:09 AM11/30/09
to


No it's not. We're teaching our children that we are not a trusting,
liberal and cohesive society, but instead one in which all adults are
strangers who first have to prove their innocence before they can take
part in the community...let alone teaching them that we are a society in
which the state wants to have the right to license our very identities
for us merely to have the right to walk down the street unchallenged,
and more.

At Tom's nativity play at the nursery (at the Hinxton Gnome campus) last
year they handed a sheet of paper round asking all the parents to sign
their names if they wanted to take photographs. I simply ignored it and
passed it on to the next person in the audience, and carried on snapping
away with the camera. I'll be doing the same thing again next week if
there's any of that nonsense this year (not that I'm the least bit
interested in the content of a nativity play) and I'll do the same thing
in the future if the William Westley school in Whittlesford, when Tom
starts there next year, ever indulges in such nonsense at any sort of event.

And if anybody ever wants to make a scene out of it, I'm game.

Michael

Malcolm

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 5:38:02 AM11/30/09
to
Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6936351.ece
>
> "Graham McArthur, headmaster of Somersham primary school in Cambridgeshire,
> said checks on the two dozen parents volunteering to walk his 330 pupils to
> the carol service at nearby St John?s church on December 17 were necessary ?
> even though they will be accompanied by teachers and a police community
> support escort when crossing the road. "

I wonder what checks he is planning - I don't think CRB could be done in
time?

Simon Morris

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 5:39:47 AM11/30/09
to
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>
> At Tom's nativity play at the nursery (at the Hinxton Gnome campus) last
> year they handed a sheet of paper round asking all the parents to sign
> their names if they wanted to take photographs.

This has puzzled me for a while. Can anyone explain why parents object
to people taking pictures of their children?

S.

Mark Ayliffe

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 5:13:18 AM11/30/09
to
On or about 2009-11-30,
Brian Watson <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> illuminated us with:

>
> I have spoken to the CRB about this sort of nonsense and there is NO legal
> requirement for adults who work with children to be CRB checked.
>
> HOWEVER (and it's a big one), it can be a requirement of employment and THAT
> is what requires the Head and his staff to be CRB checked.
>
> In other words, the accompanying parents do NOT need to be checked because
> they are not employed by the education authority.
>
> The Head is being needlessly over-cautious and over-protective, IMO.

Well, maybe so. And in the case of a simple walking trip like this, or
even a day-long outing, I'd agree. However there are circumstances
where voluntary folk in schools ought to be checked out a little more
carefully and personally I'm happy to go through the very slight
inconvenience[1] of such checks if it keeps some/many of the harmful
folk one step further away. I know it won't stop a determined
unconvicted $whatever getting through, but it does make it a bit
harder for them. I'm usually not in favour of unnecessary bureaucracy,
but this really isn't too troublesome IME[3].

[1] IIRC I currently have 3 active enhanced[2] CRB checks for
"working" with children in different contexts. Now that *is* a silly
system. They really should make the things properly transferrable like
they were originally.
[2] That's the sort a class teacher has.
[3] Although it was a pain that the specific CRB check didn't come
through in time for the other chap who was going to go with us on a
recent year 6 residential week. So I was the only male adult in the
group. Ho hum.
--
Mark
Real email address | Everyone has a photographic memory.
is mark at | Some just don't have film.
ayliffe dot org |

Stephen Borrill

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 5:46:02 AM11/30/09
to
On Nov 29, 7:37 pm, "Dave {Reply Address In.Sig}"

<noon...@llondel.org> wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6936351.ece
>
> "Graham McArthur, headmaster of Somersham primary school in Cambridgeshire,
> said checks on the two dozen parents volunteering to walk his 330 pupils to
> the carol service at nearby St John?s church on December 17 were necessary ?
> even though they will be accompanied by teachers and a police community
> support escort when crossing the road. "

For the record, Histon and Impington Infants' School are also
insisting on CRB checks for volunteers to walk along with the children
and teachers for their church visit.

--
Stephen

Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 6:05:17 AM11/30/09
to
Simon Morris wrote:

Apparently they're scared there might be a paedophile in the audience.
So the fact that I've signed my name on a piece of paper obviously means
that I'm not, and everyone is happy for me then to take photos. Or
something.

Michael

Tim Ward

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 6:18:29 AM11/30/09
to
"Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Q6qdnUvZK6lwO47W...@pipex.net...

>
> Apparently they're scared there might be a paedophile in the audience.

I think it's more the fact that the photo might end up on the internet and
thus, they fear, enable the violent father to trace where his ex-wife and
children have got to. Which is why even when the school does publish
photographs there are often no children's names to them.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor


Simon Morris

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 6:36:08 AM11/30/09
to

But why is it more scary to have a paedophile in the audience taking
pictures, than to have a paedophile in the audience?

S.

Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 6:50:21 AM11/30/09
to

Heaven knows. It could be something to do with the paedophiles
distributing photos so that they can later choose targets to abduct. Or
for their friends to choose. That's one argument I've heard bandied
about in the past.

As though the risk of this were somehow greater than that of the child
being knocked down by one of the other parents' cars on the way home
after the nativity play...

Michael

Jon Green

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 7:03:56 AM11/30/09
to
Tim Ward wrote:
> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Q6qdnUvZK6lwO47W...@pipex.net...
>> Apparently they're scared there might be a paedophile in the audience.
>
> I think it's more the fact that the photo might end up on the internet and
> thus, they fear, enable the violent father to trace where his ex-wife and
> children have got to. Which is why even when the school does publish
> photographs there are often no children's names to them.

That is, by far, a better reason than fear of paedophiles, IMHO.

Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.

Ronin

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 7:07:18 AM11/30/09
to
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:37:01 +0000, Dave {Reply Address In.Sig} wrote:

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6936351.ece
>
> "Graham McArthur, headmaster of Somersham primary school in Cambridgeshire,
> said checks on the two dozen parents volunteering to walk his 330 pupils to
> the carol service at nearby St John?s church on December 17 were necessary ?
> even though they will be accompanied by teachers and a police community
> support escort when crossing the road. "
>

> If you want to accompany your child in any school Christmas-related
> activities then you'd better get yourself vetted.
>
> Perhaps it needs a large number of parents to stand up and declare that
> enough is enough and withdraw their children from the school activities as a
> message to the PC brigade. Or are we really all that dangerous to children?

"It's just a ride, and we can change it any time we want. It's only a
choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money, a choice, right
now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks
on your door, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see
all of us as one."

Simon Morris

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 7:28:28 AM11/30/09
to
Jon Green wrote:
> Tim Ward wrote:
>> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:Q6qdnUvZK6lwO47W...@pipex.net...
>>> Apparently they're scared there might be a paedophile in the audience.
>> I think it's more the fact that the photo might end up on the internet and
>> thus, they fear, enable the violent father to trace where his ex-wife and
>> children have got to. Which is why even when the school does publish
>> photographs there are often no children's names to them.
>
> That is, by far, a better reason than fear of paedophiles, IMHO.
>

Yes, I hadn't thought of that case.

S.

Andrew May

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 7:56:32 AM11/30/09
to
Tim Ward wrote:
> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Q6qdnUvZK6lwO47W...@pipex.net...
>> Apparently they're scared there might be a paedophile in the audience.
>
> I think it's more the fact that the photo might end up on the internet and
> thus, they fear, enable the violent father to trace where his ex-wife and
> children have got to. Which is why even when the school does publish
> photographs there are often no children's names to them.
>
But how does asking people who are taking photographs to sign a list
prevent that.

Imagine a scenario. The infant school nativity play. Mother of the
little boy playing Joseph signs the sheet and takes photographs of her
son in the play. Takes a particularly nice snap of the 'happy couple'
cooing over the crib and posts it on her blog.

Meanwhile the estranged father of the little girl who was playing Mary
sees his daughter in the photo on the web and now knows at the very
least which school she is attending.

Where has having a list of people taking photographs helped any more
than not having said list?

Andrew

Skinny Minnie

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 8:06:02 AM11/30/09
to
> "Graham McArthur, headmaster of Somersham primary school in
> Cambridgeshire,
> said checks on the two dozen parents volunteering to walk his 330 pupils
> to
> the carol service at nearby St John?s church on December 17 were
> necessary.

What this knob-head may or may not think is an utter irrelevance. It's a
public road between the school gate and the Church and anyone can walk along
the pavement at the same time as the poor, vulnerable little kiddywinks.
Graham McArthur can stand at the side bleating, like the puffed up little
nobody he is, should that be his wish.


Tim Ward

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 8:23:31 AM11/30/09
to
"Andrew May" <andrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7nhto0F...@mid.individual.net...

> Tim Ward wrote:
>> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:Q6qdnUvZK6lwO47W...@pipex.net...
>>> Apparently they're scared there might be a paedophile in the audience.
>>
>> I think it's more the fact that the photo might end up on the internet
>> and thus, they fear, enable the violent father to trace where his ex-wife
>> and children have got to. Which is why even when the school does publish
>> photographs there are often no children's names to them.
>>
> But how does asking people who are taking photographs to sign a list
> prevent that.

That does sound as if it is aimed at a different threat. More applicable to
this particular threat would be to get all the parents of the participating
children to sign to give permission for photos to be taken, or not, and if
there's a single veto then no photography is allowed, otherwise anyone can
take pictures.

Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 9:18:41 AM11/30/09
to
Tim Ward wrote:

> "Andrew May" <andrew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7nhto0F...@mid.individual.net...
>

>>But how does asking people who are taking photographs to sign a list
>>prevent that.
>
>
> That does sound as if it is aimed at a different threat. More applicable to
> this particular threat would be to get all the parents of the participating
> children to sign to give permission for photos to be taken, or not, and if
> there's a single veto then no photography is allowed, otherwise anyone can
> take pictures.

I can't imagine such a scenario ever possibly panning out. Unless the
whole school were parented by feeble-willed apologists, how on Earth
could a significant number of parents accept the lone veto of one of the
other parents, thus rendering them all incapable of having any
photographic record of their childrens' activities?

Michael

Simon Morris

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 9:27:20 AM11/30/09
to

Especially as the parents could just promise not to post any names of
any children (other than their own) alongside any photos they put on the
web.

S.

Fevric J. Glandules

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 10:12:45 AM11/30/09
to
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:

> I can't imagine such a scenario ever possibly panning out. Unless the
> whole school were parented by feeble-willed apologists, how on Earth
> could a significant number of parents accept the lone veto of one of the
> other parents, thus rendering them all incapable of having any
> photographic record of their childrens' activities?

Has not exactly this been reported here?

And in a similar vein:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/4639239.Ex_cop_tells_of_grandson___s_match_photo_veto/

Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 10:33:12 AM11/30/09
to
Fevric J. Glandules wrote:


I thought I had heard somewhere that a court order is needed in order to
force someone to delete photos already taken on a camera? You can't just
willy-nilly ask someone to delete the photos on a camera.

It appears in the above example that Stevenson deleted his photos when
told he would need permission from every parent to keep them, yet
further down in the article it is pointed out that it is not an offence
to take pohots even when asked not to do so. As an ex-cop I'm surprised
Stevenson didn't stand up for himself and tell them to sod off.

Michael

Message has been deleted

Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 10:54:56 AM11/30/09
to
August West wrote:

> The entity calling itself Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>
>>I thought I had heard somewhere that a court order is needed in order
>>to force someone to delete photos already taken on a camera? You can't
>>just willy-nilly ask someone to delete the photos on a camera.
>
>

> Of course you can _ask_, but, no, you can't force.

Oops, yes, that's what I meant.

Michael

Stephen Borrill

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 11:50:40 AM11/30/09
to
On Nov 30, 12:56 pm, Andrew May <andrew_d_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Ward wrote:
> > "Michael Kilpatrick" <mich...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message

> >news:Q6qdnUvZK6lwO47W...@pipex.net...
> >> Apparently they're scared there might be a paedophile in the audience.
>
> > I think it's more the fact that the photo might end up on the internet and
> > thus, they fear, enable the violent father to trace where his ex-wife and
> > children have got to. Which is why even when the school does publish
> > photographs there are often no children's names to them.
>
> But how does asking people who are taking photographs to sign a list
> prevent that.

When my daughter was at nursery, cameras were only allowed if no-one
at all had returned the form with "I object to photography".

--
Stephen

Jules

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 1:35:37 PM11/30/09
to
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:50:40 -0800, Stephen Borrill wrote:
> When my daughter was at nursery, cameras were only allowed if no-one
> at all had returned the form with "I object to photography".

Over here it's just accepted that parents will want to take photos at
school events. No paperwork necessary, and there's no (at least no vocal!)
wibbling from any of the parents about "risks". Maybe it's one of those
geographical things, and it's different in other parts of the country
though.


The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 2:34:26 PM11/30/09
to
Tim Ward wrote:
> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Q6qdnUvZK6lwO47W...@pipex.net...
>> Apparently they're scared there might be a paedophile in the audience.
>
> I think it's more the fact that the photo might end up on the internet and
> thus, they fear, enable the violent father to trace where his ex-wife and
> children have got to. Which is why even when the school does publish
> photographs there are often no children's names to them.
>
What about the violent alcoholic ex-wife?

Cwatters

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 2:39:44 PM11/30/09
to

"Stephen Borrill" <gsbo...@precedence.co.uk> wrote in message
news:21e9307f-4ef3-4859...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

>For the record, Histon and Impington Infants' School are also
>insisting on CRB checks for volunteers to walk along with the children
>and teachers for their church visit.

Perhaps refer them to..
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/third_sector/assets/CRB%20final.pdf

There can be financial consequences for the school for doing unnecessary
checks on volunteers.


Skinny Minnie

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 5:01:59 PM11/30/09
to

> For the record, Histon and Impington Infants' School are also
> insisting on CRB checks for volunteers to walk along with the children
> and teachers for their church visit.


Once more I raise the point that it's none of the schools business to demand
any sort of checks of members of the public - which volunteers are - to walk
on public highways - which most routes between schools and churches are.

The school can make demands of people on their premises - fair enough. They
do NOT, so far as I know, have a right to make any sort of demands of anyone
outside their employ who just happens to be near to one or more of their
pupils when the pupils are in a public area.

If I, as a parent, wanted to walk alongside my child and his / her friends
and / or teachers on a public road, exercising my right of free speech to
say things like "Careful Jack, there's a car coming" who exactly is the head
teacher, or any other member of staff at the local school, to demand that I
have a C.R.B. check, or similar? I have no more need to defer to them than
to the cleaner in the local Co-op or, for that matter, to any passing tramp.


rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 5:28:50 PM11/30/09
to
In article <KTOQm.12614$VG2....@newsfe23.ams2>, si...@letusgothen.org
(Simon Morris) wrote:

Still pretty far-fetched in the vast majority of cases. In reality, I
suspect the lack of names on group photos is because no-one thought to
write them down at the time and they can't remember all the details when
they try to re-create them.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Tim Ward

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 5:30:52 PM11/30/09
to
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ifedncpZfIS_2onW...@giganews.com...

> In article <KTOQm.12614$VG2....@newsfe23.ams2>, si...@letusgothen.org
> (Simon Morris) wrote:
>
>> Jon Green wrote:
>> > Tim Ward wrote:
>> >> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in
>> >> message news:Q6qdnUvZK6lwO47W...@pipex.net...
>> >>> Apparently they're scared there might be a paedophile in the
>> >>> audience.
>> >> I think it's more the fact that the photo might end up on the
>> >> internet and thus, they fear, enable the violent father to trace
>> >> where his ex-wife and children have got to. Which is why even when
>> >> the school does publish photographs there are often no children's
>> >> names to them.
>> >
>> > That is, by far, a better reason than fear of paedophiles, IMHO.
>>
>> Yes, I hadn't thought of that case.
>
> Still pretty far-fetched in the vast majority of cases.

So it might be. But I'm pretty sure it was the head who told me this was the
rationale.

Cris Galletly

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 5:36:27 PM11/30/09
to
In article <uqSdnY8KtsrigonW...@brightview.co.uk>,

Cwatters <colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
>There can be financial consequences for the school for doing unnecessary
>checks on volunteers.

I do wonder whether that might be behind the potential relaxation of checks
on choir members in churches in this Diocese.
--
+ Cris Galletly <gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> +

Steve Slatcher

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 5:46:47 PM11/30/09
to
The more I think of this, the more bizarre and difficult to believe it
becomes. After the records of the parents are checked (which apparently
is going to be completed in a couple of weeks!) how on earth are the
teachers going to know who has been checked when the kids are en route?
Will the vetted parents be issued with special uniforms? I can quite
understand that teachers don't want to risk kids being in any sort of
danger from undesirable adults in between school and church, but surely
the best way of doing that would be to tell parents to keep well out of
the way.

There will be at least one teacher per class of kids, headmaster and
presumably other pre-vetted school staff, plus a police community
support escort. So WTF do they also need two dozen parents getting in
the way and providing cover for potential paedophiles and/or abducters?
Frankly, I think if the school is not capable of organising a
two-by-two crocodile of kids for a 10 minute walk they should just give
just give up the whole idea.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 6:01:46 PM11/30/09
to
In article <7nivctF...@mid.individual.net>, t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim
Ward) wrote:

> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ifedncpZfIS_2onW...@giganews.com...
> > In article <KTOQm.12614$VG2....@newsfe23.ams2>,
> > si...@letusgothen.org (Simon Morris) wrote:
> >
> >> Jon Green wrote:
> >> > Tim Ward wrote:
> >> >> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote
> >> >> in message news:Q6qdnUvZK6lwO47W...@pipex.net...
> >> >>> Apparently they're scared there might be a paedophile in the
> >> >>> audience.
> >> >> I think it's more the fact that the photo might end up on the
> >> >> internet and thus, they fear, enable the violent father to trace
> >> >> where his ex-wife and children have got to. Which is why even when
> >> >> the school does publish photographs there are often no children's
> >> >> names to them.
> >> >
> >> > That is, by far, a better reason than fear of paedophiles, IMHO.
> >>
> >> Yes, I hadn't thought of that case.
> >
> > Still pretty far-fetched in the vast majority of cases.
>
> So it might be. But I'm pretty sure it was the head who told me
> this was the rationale.

No doubt he was also worried about a meteorite strike.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Calvin Sambrook

unread,
Nov 30, 2009, 7:03:10 PM11/30/09
to
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0ZOdnUhODNJH04nW...@giganews.com...

> In article <7nivctF...@mid.individual.net>, t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim
> Ward) wrote:
>
>> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ifedncpZfIS_2onW...@giganews.com...
>> > In article <KTOQm.12614$VG2....@newsfe23.ams2>,
>> > si...@letusgothen.org (Simon Morris) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jon Green wrote:
>> >> > Tim Ward wrote:
>> >> >> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote
>> >> >> in message news:Q6qdnUvZK6lwO47W...@pipex.net...
>> >> >>> Apparently they're scared there might be a paedophile in the
>> >> >>> audience.
>> >> >> I think it's more the fact that the photo might end up on the
>> >> >> internet and thus, they fear, enable the violent father to trace
>> >> >> where his ex-wife and children have got to. Which is why even when
>> >> >> the school does publish photographs there are often no children's
>> >> >> names to them.
>> >> >
>> >> > That is, by far, a better reason than fear of paedophiles, IMHO.
>> >
>> > Still pretty far-fetched in the vast majority of cases.
>>
>> So it might be. But I'm pretty sure it was the head who told me
>> this was the rationale.
>
> No doubt he was also worried about a meteorite strike.
>

It really is worse than that unfortunately. I'm involved with a few
children's sports and the rational in all the written documentation from the
governing bodies goes:
Only publish photos in after-sport kit (tracksuits rather than race kit for
instance). Most governing bodies even express concern that photos might be
*edited* by paedos to make them inappropriate.
Never publish names along with photos. The reason given is always to
"prevent" paedos making contact with the child.

The assumption in the written policies is always that it's better to publish
nothing of value rather than expose a single child to even the remotest
possible danger. What they miss of course is that celebrating success and
achievement is important to building character and self esteem. That and
the fact that any paedo worth his rocks can very easily look at the photo of
the nameless winner of the competition and look at the competition result on
the club website and match the two.

It's highly illogical but then witch hunts always are.

Syd

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 3:39:35 AM12/1/09
to
On 1 Dec, 00:03, "Calvin Sambrook" <csambr...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> <rosenst...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:0ZOdnUhODNJH04nW...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <7nivctF3jadv...@mid.individual.net>, t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim
> > Ward) wrote:
>
> >> <rosenst...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:ifedncpZfIS_2onW...@giganews.com...
> >> > In article <KTOQm.12614$VG2.11...@newsfe23.ams2>,

> >> > si...@letusgothen.org (Simon Morris) wrote:
>
> >> >> Jon Green wrote:
> >> >> > Tim Ward wrote:
> >> >> >> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mich...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote
> >> >> >> in messagenews:Q6qdnUvZK6lwO47W...@pipex.net...
> It's highly illogical but then witch hunts always are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have an adopted child whose arms were broken by birth parents who
probably still live in the county, so I am one of those irritating
people who ask that photographs should not be taken and displayed
publicly with a (highly identifiable) name attached to them. I'm not
remotely concerned about paedos. There are several other children at
school in a similarly vulnerable situation, but of course none of the
parents want to advertise their status.

Arnold@large.com Uncle Arnold

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 5:23:36 AM12/1/09
to
Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
> Simon Morris wrote:

>>>
>>
>> But why is it more scary to have a paedophile in the audience taking
>> pictures, than to have a paedophile in the audience?
>
> Heaven knows. It could be something to do with the paedophiles
> distributing photos so that they can later choose targets to abduct.
> Or for their friends to choose. That's one argument I've heard bandied
> about in the past.

It's actually nothing of the sort. It's scary because of the 'danger' that a
paedophile might get a photo he or she likes masturbating over. Literally
that, and nothing else, is the fear. The demented combination of p/c brigade
and 'folk mind' means that even the thought of a saddo wanking over a photo
of a nativity play is considered 'a threat'.

A.

Arnold@large.com Uncle Arnold

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 5:27:55 AM12/1/09
to
Steve Slatcher wrote:
> The more I think of this, the more bizarre and difficult to believe it
> becomes. After the records of the parents are checked (which
> apparently is going to be completed in a couple of weeks!) how on
> earth are the teachers going to know who has been checked when the
> kids are en route? Will the vetted parents be issued with special
> uniforms? I can quite understand that teachers don't want to risk
> kids being in any sort of danger from undesirable adults in between
> school and church

The ultimate idiocy resides in the fact that the kids are more likely to be
in danger from *the priests they meet in the church*...

A.


Brian Morrison

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 5:39:25 AM12/1/09
to
Skinny Minnie wrote:

> If I, as a parent, wanted to walk alongside my child and his / her friends
> and / or teachers on a public road, exercising my right of free speech to
> say things like "Careful Jack, there's a car coming" who exactly is the head
> teacher, or any other member of staff at the local school, to demand that I
> have a C.R.B. check, or similar?

Oh dear, you've failed to realise that as a non-member of the
educational establishment clique your opinion is irrelevant to anyone
who is.....

--

Brian

Paul Oldham

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 5:33:27 AM12/1/09
to
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

> Still pretty far-fetched in the vast majority of cases. In reality, I
> suspect the lack of names on group photos is because no-one thought to
> write them down at the time and they can't remember all the details when
> they try to re-create them.

I've come across this "not naming" rule as written policy on several
occasions, the Scout Association for one. This from their "Developing a
Scouting Website" fact sheet[1]:

"Young people should NOT be easily identified.
- Do not give out their email or other contact details.
- Do not use their full names.
- Avoid using names at all if possible."

[1] http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs295207.pdf

--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"I'm such a good lover because I practice a lot on my own."

Paul Oldham

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 5:37:08 AM12/1/09
to
Calvin Sambrook wrote:

> Never publish names along with photos. The reason given is always to
> "prevent" paedos making contact with the child.

I have some sympathy with the "not naming" rule. Someone I know, when
very young, had her photo published in the local paper along with her
full name and got a dirty phone call as a result. She jokes about it now
but I suspect it's kept fresh in her memory for a reason. :-(

--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.milton.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk

"I'm really easy to get along with once you people learn to see it my way"

Espen Koht

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 5:45:24 AM12/1/09
to
In article <7nj096F...@mid.individual.net>,
Steve Slatcher <steve.s...@pobox.com> wrote:

Having recently been briefed on vetting requirements for people working
with minors and those who are vulnerable in a different context by
someone who presumably had a reasonably clue, I see nothing to suggest
that this isn't a problem the school has gotten itself into on its own.
Either they have failed to understand the guidelines or they are
willfully misinterpreting them for some personal or political purposes.

Brian Morrison

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 5:47:47 AM12/1/09
to

Not sure it's even that. More likely it's because the school and its
associates have found another way of exercising power over people and
they like that so keep finding ways of stretching the boundaries.
Paedophilia is just a convenient excuse.

--

Brian

Brian Morrison

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 5:59:00 AM12/1/09
to
Syd wrote:

> I have an adopted child whose arms were broken by birth parents who
> probably still live in the county, so I am one of those irritating
> people who ask that photographs should not be taken and displayed
> publicly with a (highly identifiable) name attached to them.

That's exactly the sort of thing that causes to people to want to know
why. I imagine that as time goes on that the child concerned becomes
less and less recognizable.

If you're worried about them coming to attack your child then presumably
that's what the police are for. Unless it's just that, a baseless worry....

--

Brian

Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 6:21:14 AM12/1/09
to
Simon Morris wrote:
> Jon Green wrote:
>> Tim Ward wrote:
>>> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote
>>> in message news:Q6qdnUvZK6lwO47W...@pipex.net...

>>>> Apparently they're scared there might be a paedophile in the
>>>> audience.
>>> I think it's more the fact that the photo might end up on the
>>> internet and thus, they fear, enable the violent father to trace
>>> where his ex-wife and children have got to. Which is why even when
>>> the school does publish photographs there are often no children's
>>> names to them.
>>
>> That is, by far, a better reason than fear of paedophiles, IMHO.
>>
>
> Yes, I hadn't thought of that case.

But again, the risk is infinitesimal.

How much internet searching does a a violent father (or wife, it happens...)
have to do to locate their estranged spouse and child through an uploaded
photograph?

It's ridiculous.

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
www.imagebus.co.uk/shop


Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 6:23:26 AM12/1/09
to
Tim Ward wrote:
> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ifedncpZfIS_2onW...@giganews.com...
>> In article <KTOQm.12614$VG2....@newsfe23.ams2>,
>> si...@letusgothen.org (Simon Morris) wrote:
>>
>>> Jon Green wrote:
>>>> Tim Ward wrote:
>>>>> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote
>>>>> in message news:Q6qdnUvZK6lwO47W...@pipex.net...
>>>>>> Apparently they're scared there might be a paedophile in the
>>>>>> audience.
>>>>> I think it's more the fact that the photo might end up on the
>>>>> internet and thus, they fear, enable the violent father to trace
>>>>> where his ex-wife and children have got to. Which is why even when
>>>>> the school does publish photographs there are often no children's
>>>>> names to them.
>>>>
>>>> That is, by far, a better reason than fear of paedophiles, IMHO.
>>>
>>> Yes, I hadn't thought of that case.
>>
>> Still pretty far-fetched in the vast majority of cases.
>
> So it might be. But I'm pretty sure it was the head who told me this
> was the rationale.

In my experiance, Heads (and teachers generally) will say any old toffee
these days and hope that their position in society will persuade the
gullible as it always used to.

This whole no-photos bullshit is just one manifestation of it.

Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 6:24:07 AM12/1/09
to
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>> That is, by far, a better reason than fear of paedophiles, IMHO.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I hadn't thought of that case.
>>>
>>> Still pretty far-fetched in the vast majority of cases.
>>
>> So it might be. But I'm pretty sure it was the head who told me
>> this was the rationale.
>
> No doubt he was also worried about a meteorite strike.

At last, the voice of sanity!

:-))

Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 6:27:53 AM12/1/09
to
Calvin Sambrook wrote:

>> No doubt he was also worried about a meteorite strike.
>>
>
> It really is worse than that unfortunately. I'm involved with a few
> children's sports and the rational in all the written documentation
> from the governing bodies goes:
> Only publish photos in after-sport kit (tracksuits rather than race
> kit for instance). Most governing bodies even express concern that
> photos might be *edited* by paedos to make them inappropriate.
> Never publish names along with photos. The reason given is always to
> "prevent" paedos making contact with the child.

Oh, FFS!

If a paedo wants to target a child, I'd have thought just hanging around
near the school would be more effective.

This whole photographing scare is a complete red herring.

It's the same as the recent decision by some railway staff to forbid
photography of railways and trains because of some nebulous fear of
terrorist activity.

> It's highly illogical but then witch hunts always are.

Dead right.

Brian Watson

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 6:30:10 AM12/1/09
to
Tim Ward wrote:

> More
> applicable to this particular threat would be to get all the parents
> of the participating children to sign to give permission for photos
> to be taken, or not, and if there's a single veto then no photography
> is allowed, otherwise anyone can take pictures.

So if there's one crazy, illogical, paranoid parent with children at the
school, they get a veto?

Ronin

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 6:32:38 AM12/1/09
to
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:23:26 +0000, Brian Watson wrote:

>
> This whole no-photos bullshit is just one manifestation of it.

Perhaps it's an indication of civilisation slipping backwards - people are
actually scared of the camera stealing their souls. It would explain the
observed behaviour.

Tim Ward

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 6:37:05 AM12/1/09
to
"Brian Watson" <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IOadnfcXe7S3YYnW...@bt.com...

>
> How much internet searching does a a violent father (or wife, it
> happens...) have to do to locate their estranged spouse and child through
> an uploaded photograph?

Search on the name, see the photo. Repeat once a month, or once an hour if
obsessive (not beyond the bounds of possibility).

Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 6:41:31 AM12/1/09
to


Personally, I would be more concerned about my children being
brainwashing into thinking all sorts of stupid nonsense as a result of
meeting a priest, rather than any possible danger of deviancy.

Or maybe that's what you meant in the first place?

Michael

Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 6:44:08 AM12/1/09
to
Paul Oldham wrote:

> Calvin Sambrook wrote:
>
>> Never publish names along with photos. The reason given is always to
>> "prevent" paedos making contact with the child.
>
>
> I have some sympathy with the "not naming" rule. Someone I know, when
> very young, had her photo published in the local paper along with her
> full name and got a dirty phone call as a result. She jokes about it now
> but I suspect it's kept fresh in her memory for a reason. :-(

I've had a stupid call in the past and it was nothing to do with a
photoogragh. Also, when I was a teenager I picked up the phone to some
moron (sounded rather young( who presumably picked the name out of the
phone book), and asked if I had killed Patrick. Oh, how funny.

And before that, when I was seven, some idiot called at 1am saying there
was a bomb in the house.

On the more dangerous side, a lot of women have had dirty phone calls
(of varying levels of obscenity or threat) without any photo ever
appearing. It can be completely random.

So, one woman gets one dirty phone because many thousands of people see
her photo appearing in the local paper. I ask "so what?" or even "what,
only one?"

Michael

Michael Kilpatrick

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 6:46:35 AM12/1/09
to
Brian Watson wrote:

> Tim Ward wrote:
>
>
>>More
>>applicable to this particular threat would be to get all the parents
>>of the participating children to sign to give permission for photos
>>to be taken, or not, and if there's a single veto then no photography
>>is allowed, otherwise anyone can take pictures.
>
>
> So if there's one crazy, illogical, paranoid parent with children at the
> school, they get a veto?
>

Of course. It's like the UN Security Council: one member one vote,
except the votes of a select few idiots are far more important than the
rest.

Michael

Fevric J. Glandules

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 7:03:45 AM12/1/09
to
Cris Galletly wrote:

> In article <uqSdnY8KtsrigonW...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Cwatters <colin.wat...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
>>There can be financial consequences for the school for doing unnecessary
>>checks on volunteers.
>
> I do wonder whether that might be behind the potential relaxation of checks
> on choir members in churches in this Diocese.

Wot?

You need(ed) a CRB to sing in a bloody church choir?

Fevric J. Glandules

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 7:07:37 AM12/1/09
to
Uncle Arnold wrote:

> The ultimate idiocy resides in the fact that the kids are more likely to be
> in danger from *the priests they meet in the church*...

I /think/ the danger scale goes something like this:
- parents
- other family members
- friends of the family
- teachers, carers, etc.
- strangers


That's "most likely to be the source of abuse" at the *top*, for the
hard of thinking.

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 7:11:53 AM12/1/09
to
In article <l78fu6-...@bigjohn.hug>, pa...@the-hug.org (Paul Oldham)
wrote:

> Calvin Sambrook wrote:
>
> > Never publish names along with photos. The reason given is
> > always to "prevent" paedos making contact with the child.
>
> I have some sympathy with the "not naming" rule. Someone I know,
> when very young, had her photo published in the local paper along
> with her full name and got a dirty phone call as a result. She
> jokes about it now but I suspect it's kept fresh in her memory for
> a reason. :-(

My daughter did a Google search for her name when younger and got a very
offensive web page. It was part of her web education in the end.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Fevric J. Glandules

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 7:12:47 AM12/1/09
to
Espen Koht wrote:

> Either they have failed to understand the guidelines or they are
> willfully misinterpreting them for some personal or political purposes.

Incompetence over maliciousness, every time.

Anyway, all it takes is for *one* person to suggest it and *most*
people, I would venture, would just go along with it because they
don't want to be seen as doing anything that might be "supporting
paedophiles".

No doubt there's a fair number of people *here* who would be
confident enough of the facts and their own ability to argue
their case, possibly in the face of some hostility, to say "no".
Most wouldn't.

Brian Morrison

unread,
Dec 1, 2009, 7:15:19 AM12/1/09