Someone close to me has just got back from a foreign holiday with his kids. He now has Social Services on his case because one child has a sunburnt nose. Reported by the after-school club. He said, "If I wanted to apply physical punishment it wouldn't be by burning his nose." That didn't seem to help.
Bill
I blame Esther Ratbag.
The after-school club are probably simply covering themselves against the possibility that an enterprising parent might accuse them of inflicting the nose damage themselves.
I don't know what the compensation for a burnt nose might be, but it probably isn't to be sniffed at,
michael adams
...
He should have said it must have happened during playtime at school. Did they carry out a risk assessment before and after? He should have asked for documentary evidence of such assessment having taken place. :-)
I think you have to send kids to school with sunscreen these days.
Or even hats.
Is game for a laugh back on TV? Seriously, I do not think they are saying it was deliberate, just perhaps not protecting a minor. However what many of these over zealous folk often forget is that its experiences like this that teach us what is bad and what is good in the world. A few days of discomfort can teach a valuable lesson. They would have had a field day with me when I was 8, I got heat stroke in the Isle of Wight and had to spend several days indoors and being monitored for dehydration and infected burns. I never went out playing in the sun on beaches after that Brian
No its the safeguarding culture which to be fair has missed real abuse and neglect many times, so everyone is running scared and passing the buck down the line. I have met Esther and she is certainly not suggesting children be wrapped in cotton wool at all. Often the sound bytes we get from various people are taken in isolation and do not tell the full story. I blame the editor. Brian
Could also be the child in question is on an 'at risk' list. We hardly ever get the full story with such things.
Esther speak with forked tongue.
She claims one thing, and works for (or acquiesces towards) another.
I blame Bichard too: he of the Soham murders enquiry.
Huntley's access to the girls was entirely through his girlfriend who worked at their school. If vetting had prevented Huntley from working at the secondary school (in itself doubtful), he would either have worked somewhere else or been unemployed, so nothing would have changed.
Max Demian posted
To be fair, Bichard himself pointed this out in his report. But by then the juggernaut could not be stopped.
Nothing new, remember Marietta Higgs?
2004. This report was in connection to how someone like Ian Huntley, who was convicted of the Soham murders in 2003, was able to work in a school, and how this could be avoided in the future."
So now we have Extreme Vetting.
(Do they have bell ringers at York Minster now?)
CRB checks for school staff had already been in place before 2003, since the 1997 Police Act in fact.
Of course, the logical problem here was that Huntley did not work at the school that the girls attended. Bichard acknowledged this inconvenient fact in his report ...
"1.11 From the summer term of 2002, [Maxine Carr] was the temporary classroom assistant to Year 5, which covered the class that Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells attended. They therefore came into contact with Huntley through knowing Maxine Carr, rather than as a result of his employment at Soham Village College."
... but then went on to ignore them.
Huh?
Now people complain that all sorts of jobs (and volunteering schemes) are requesting CRB (now DBS) checks when they aren't needed - and I think asking for them is technically illegal: though this is not enforced very well.
Now it's not just "working with children" but "possibly coming into contact with them"; and not just "children" but "vulnerable people" which could include practically anyone.
Not that I care personally: I tend to adhere to a "never volunteer for anything" rule (which, I think, comes from the armed forces).
Not enforced at all.
That has been happening ever since the 1997 Act. And of course these people never want standard CRB checks for convictions; they always want "enhanced" checks that return acquittals, arrests, accusations and even mere police suspicions.
I do volunteer for things, and have done many of them. But the moment people come to me and say "You have to sign this and you have to comply with that", then I'm out.
It arises through job creation. Persons in certain government departments wish to extend their authority/enlarge their empire.
Associated with "Little Tin God" syndrome.
Did they by any chance take the kids out of school for this holiday?
Yup, and it's yet another damn good reason to leave the EU. I call it the "self-perpetuating parasite" syndrome.
Your local district council and/or parish council are quite effective at that anyway, in or 'out' of the EU.
we don't want to add yet another layer
NT
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.