Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

One Bad Apple Ruins it for the whole bunch yet againFollow

#1 Jul 16 2009 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
**
868 posts
http://carnalnation.com/content/12357/4/jk-rowling-must-register-potential-pedophile

Quote:
In a stunningly misguided program implemented by the British government, all children's book authors who visit schools must register with a national database intended to protect children from pedophiles, and they must pay a fee to do so. Beginning October 12, 2009, the Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) will require that all adults who work with children, including authors such as J.K. Rowling and Philip Pullman if they make special visits to schools, will be required to register with the database for a fee of £64 ($105).

The Independent reports that as a result, several well-known authors will boycott schools in protest of the requirement. Philip Pullman, Anne Fine, Anthony Horowitz, Michael Morpurgo, and Quentin Blake have all publicly stated that they object to having their names listed in the database. Pullman, author of the popular fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials, called the policy "corrosive and poisonous to every kind of healthy social interaction." He eloquently adds, "This reinforces the culture of suspicion, fear and mistrust that underlies a great deal of present-day society. It teaches children that they should regard every adult as a potential murderer or rapist." Anne Fine, the former Children's Laureate for the U.K. and author of over 50 children's books, labelled the requirement "government idiocy." "When it [the VBS] becomes essential, I shall continue to work only in foreign schools, where sanity prevails," she said. "The whole idea of vetting an adult who visits many schools, but each only for a day, and then always in the presence of other adults, is deeply offensive. Our children will become further impoverished by this tiresome and ill-considered scheme, and yet another gulf will be created between young people and the rest of society."

The VBS was set up in 2002 following the tragic murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells by a school janitor, Ian Huntley. A government spokesperson defended the new rigorous regulation, saying, "The new scheme means every individual working in a field that requires more than a tiny amount of contact with children and/or vulnerable adults will have to be vetted. If they are passed, they will be placed on a register that says they are allowed to work in a regulated field. If they are barred, they will go on a separate register and it will be a criminal offence for them to try and obtain work in a regulated field, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison. It will also be illegal for anyone to employ them."

Indeed, while such reasoning seems to make sense, the ramifications are far from sensible and grossly unfair to children and adults alike. This policy borders on hysteria and panders to the public's basest fears by assuming the worst of everybody. While none of these authors wants to see any child harmed, they point to the damage such a policy has on society as a whole. In an editorial in the Independent, Anthony Horowitz, author of the The Alex Rider Collection (Alex Rider Adventure) and the Power of Five book series, perhaps put it best: "This is a law made by people with a bleak and twisted view of society. And such people, quite simply, should not be making laws."


Yet another example of the sad shift in social attitude around the world these days.
#2 Jul 16 2009 at 8:55 AM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,632 posts
Won't someone please think of the children...
#3 Jul 16 2009 at 9:08 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,369 posts
Turin, Eater of Souls wrote:
Won't someone please think of the children...


I'm thinking of them right now. Mmmmmmmmmmm.
#4 Jul 16 2009 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
That is a very interesting website you linked... Smiley: sly
#5 Jul 16 2009 at 9:17 AM Rating: Good
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
That is a very interesting website you linked... Smiley: sly


Stop thinking about sex and have it, Ash. Carpe diem and all that.
#6 Jul 16 2009 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
**
868 posts
Complete thread derail before it ever left the station; I must say I'm impressed :D
#7 Jul 16 2009 at 9:27 AM Rating: Default
***
3,229 posts
What an appalingly written website with an incredibly biased opinion.

Authors are no different from anyone else who visit schools as part of their work. It is not often you'll find me agreeing with Government policy here, but the protection of children is paramount. What makes authors think that they are special and can circumvent the rules?

Good grief I feel like I need to 'toothbrush' my eyes after reading that drivel.
#8 Jul 16 2009 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Goggy wrote:
What an appalingly written website with an incredibly biased opinion.

Authors are no different from anyone else who visit schools as part of their work. It is not often you'll find me agreeing with Government policy here, but the protection of children is paramount. What makes authors think that they are special and can circumvent the rules?

Good grief I feel like I need to 'toothbrush' my eyes after reading that drivel.
Authors are not any different than others that might work with kids. I don't quite understand the purpose of the list though. If you pay your fee and your name is added do you magically lose any desire to fondle babies?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#9 Jul 16 2009 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Goggy wrote:
Authors are no different from anyone else who visit schools as part of their work.


I guess I don't understand the rationale here at all. A janitor who works at a school kills a couple of kids, so every adult who visits schools as a treat for the kids is suspect?

Are the authors and other guests not supervised while they're at the schools? I would imagine they would be, particularly if they're well known - I'd imagine they can't take two steps without some teacher or principle (or the U.K. equivalent, headmaster or whatever) asking if they wouldn't like some tea or coffee or perhaps the still-beating heart of a child.

Okay, so maybe there's a small problem.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#10 Jul 16 2009 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, can any of you prove that J.K. Rowling isn't a monstrous child rapist? Huh? Can you?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Jul 16 2009 at 9:42 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
Elinda wrote:
Goggy wrote:
What an appalingly written website with an incredibly biased opinion.

Authors are no different from anyone else who visit schools as part of their work. It is not often you'll find me agreeing with Government policy here, but the protection of children is paramount. What makes authors think that they are special and can circumvent the rules?

Good grief I feel like I need to 'toothbrush' my eyes after reading that drivel.
Authors are not any different than others that might work with kids. I don't quite understand the purpose of the list though. If you pay your fee and your name is added do you magically lose any desire to fondle babies?


It's obviously a vetting process, no-one is under any illusion that this is an absolute guarantee that no child will be harmed in the future.

Sadly with so many agencies monitoring potential criminals you need another agency to coordinate vetting of persons in contact with the vulnerable.

#12 Jul 16 2009 at 9:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, can any of you prove that J.K. Rowling isn't a monstrous child rapist? Huh? Can you?


Why is she not releasing her certification of no-child-molestation? How can we believe anything she says when she won't release the papers that we'll refuse to accept as real anyway?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#13 Jul 16 2009 at 10:23 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Goggy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Goggy wrote:
What an appalingly written website with an incredibly biased opinion.

Authors are no different from anyone else who visit schools as part of their work. It is not often you'll find me agreeing with Government policy here, but the protection of children is paramount. What makes authors think that they are special and can circumvent the rules?

Good grief I feel like I need to 'toothbrush' my eyes after reading that drivel.
Authors are not any different than others that might work with kids. I don't quite understand the purpose of the list though. If you pay your fee and your name is added do you magically lose any desire to fondle babies?


It's obviously a vetting process, no-one is under any illusion that this is an absolute guarantee that no child will be harmed in the future.

Sadly with so many agencies monitoring potential criminals you need another agency to coordinate vetting of persons in contact with the vulnerable.
If someone has a background that they want kept secret, they will either not seek membership of said list, or forge a name.

Are you too going to ask that all parents are 'vetted' and placed on a list. How about the grandma, she should be vetted and listed. Doctors, dentists, clowns, the midway show manager, 7-11 dude, police officer, firefighter and mail carrier - they all have the potential of spending a split second alone with a child. Vet them too? Really, shouldn't EVERYONE be on the list - I mean we all spend time around kids. We all could possible face a situation where we are 'gasp' alone with a child. If we are safely on the list - we will then deal safely with a lone child encounter yes?

This way of doing things is, first, making the assumption that everyone is a child abuser - and only then attempting to prove some are not.

1st - it's really bad to assume everyone is a child molester/murderer
2nd - paying money and being on a list doesn't prevent someone from doing harm to children.

Sure, schools shouldn't be hiring drunks to drive buses or pervs to teach phy-ed. So, do a background check. I just don't see how this list is going to do any good. Not that the US is any better. Many school districts require all employees to be finger-printed.







Edited, Jul 16th 2009 8:26pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#14 Jul 16 2009 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Goggy wrote:
It's obviously a vetting process, no-one is under any illusion that this is an absolute guarantee that no child will be harmed in the future.


Yes, but the outrage which inevitably pushes this sort of policy forward is based on an assumption that we should be able to make said guarantee. That's the problem...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Jul 16 2009 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
I agree with Gbaji.
#16 Jul 16 2009 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
I thought this thread was gonna be about the Osmonds. Smiley: mad
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#17 Jul 16 2009 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
I thought this thread was gonna be about the Osmonds. Smiley: mad
The song has been in my head all day. Smiley: mad
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#18 Jul 16 2009 at 6:03 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I was alone with my son today.
#19 Jul 16 2009 at 6:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I was alone with my son today.
Have you been properly vetted?
#20 Jul 16 2009 at 7:58 PM Rating: Good
Everyone knows that we are all guilty until proven innocent.

What the government needs is a device implanted on every person that can record all their speech, location and activities at all times, and charge $500 per person for the device. Much more efficient than $64 for a stupid register.
#21 Jul 16 2009 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I was alone with my son today.

This is actually a good point. Isn't most sexual abuse committed by a family member or friend of the family?



Edited, Jul 16th 2009 11:38pm by trickybeck
#22 Jul 16 2009 at 8:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
trickybeck wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
I was alone with my son today.

This is actually a good point. Isn't most sexual abuse committed by a family member or friend of the family?



Edited, Jul 16th 2009 11:38pm by trickybeck


Thanks. Now I'll never be able to go read Harry Potter books to UK kids.

*******.
#23 Jul 17 2009 at 4:59 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Sadly with so many agencies monitoring potential criminals you need another agency to coordinate vetting of persons in contact with the vulnerable.


It's bad enough having agencies which monitor actual criminals after they have served time and paid their due to society. Agencies monitoring people that might commit crimes without even the slightest bit of reason, inductive or purely rational, behind it, is @#%^ing ridiculous.

At the risk of contradicting myself, I can sort of understand registering guns: they are made for the express purpose of killing stuff, and some dude that buys one has the intent, at some point in the future, for good or for bad, of killing something. There's nothing in the nature of being a teacher, child author, parent, principle, etc, that means that at some point in the future, for good or for bad, you're intending to molest a child.

Edited, Jul 17th 2009 9:00am by Pensive
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 226 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (226)