Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Uncle Doof · Jul 10, 2008, 08:56 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rd-checks.html

A woman was prevented from taking her own son to school because she hadn't been screened for a criminal record.

Jayne Jones had been escorting 14-year-old severely epileptic Alex each day by taxi, taking specialist equipment with her in case he had a fit.

But the mother-of-two was told she would not be allowed to continue doing so until her details had been run through a Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) check.

Yep. The UK: Owned and operated by idiots.

richwig83 · Jul 10, 2008, 09:19 PM

The UK: Owned and operated by idiots......

Just like most other countries then??

TETENAL · Jul 10, 2008, 09:47 PM

Always be wary when stories are told in passive voice.

turtle777 · Jul 10, 2008, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Always be wary when stories are told in passive voice.

WTF ?

Do you expect the people to write news articles from their own perspective ?

-t

Chaos Theory · Jul 11, 2008, 12:37 AM

Epileptics don't have fits. Some posters here seem to tho.

olePigeon · Jul 11, 2008, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof

Yep. The UK: Owned and operated by idiots.

That's how it is in the U.S. You have to go through an extensive background check before you're allowed to stay on any school campus. If you're bringing medical equipment, you also have to be screened (even if its your own kid.)

It's like that for a very good reason.

Uncle Doof · Jul 11, 2008, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

That's how it is in the U.S. You have to go through an extensive background check before you're allowed to stay on any school campus.

It didn't say anything about her staying on campus. This is about the journey to campus.

Originally Posted by olePigeon

It's like that for a very good reason.

Which is?

olePigeon · Jul 11, 2008, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof

It didn't say anything about her staying on campus. This is about the journey to campus.

The story is also about a different matter. Apparently the mom was mislabeled a violent offender and had to wait for her to be cleared before she could take her kid to school. She could sign a friend or someone else authorized to take her kid while she was waiting for her records to be cleared.

Because her background check came back wrong, she was not allowed to go near the school. It's a mistake, but it's better safe than sorry.

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof

Which is?

I would have thought that was obvious. Schools make easy targets for people looking to take advantage of kids one way or another. Given the size, employment, and number of kids at most major K-12 schools, they need to be very careful about who they hire.

Even with extensive background checks it doesn't always help, sickos still get into the schools and abuse kids. Not having the background checks would be unthinkable. It's worth the occasional mishap.

Parents with criminal backgrounds are not allowed within 300 feet of the school (that includes the street), so they're not even allowed to drop off their kids. They have to take the bus, carpool, have a nanny drop them off, or ride a bike or walk.

Uncle Doof · Jul 11, 2008, 01:32 PM

You're missing the context, Ole. Which is that a third of the adult population of the UK now has to have a compulsory "kiddie fiddler" check on them.

The issue isn't that the woman was mislabelled as an offender - it's that she hadn't been checked at all.

This is just a normal woman dropping her kid off at school. Not a staff member, not a teacher. Let's sum up what the powers that be have done here: You cannot be around your own kid unless you prove that you're not a child molester.

Chuckit · Jul 11, 2008, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

WTF ?

Do you expect the people to write news articles from their own perspective ?

-t

I think was TETENAL was getting at is that the passive voice is often a kind of weasel-wording — it can make it less obvious when you're leaving out details. Consider the difference:

"The restaurant was closed."
"The state health department closed the restaurant."

olePigeon · Jul 11, 2008, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof

The issue isn't that the woman was mislabelled as an offender - it's that she hadn't been checked at all.

Is it common knowledge that you're supposed to get checked out? Is it her responsibility to get checked, or do they do it automatically when you enroll your child? If she knew she was supposed to get a background check, and she is supposed to take the initiative and do it, how is it the government's fault?

It's pretty vague, I don't understand what's going on.

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof

Let's sum up what the powers that be have done here: You cannot be around your own kid unless you prove that you're not a child molester.

She can be around her own kid, she just can't be near a school even if it's her own kid.

Chuckit · Jul 11, 2008, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Is it common knowledge that you're supposed to get checked out? Is it her responsibility to get checked, or do they do it automatically when you enroll your child? If she knew she was supposed to get a background check, and she is supposed to take the initiative and do it, how is it the government's fault?

If I tell you to give me your car or I shoot you, how is it me who gets arrested when I shoot you?

Oh, yeah, I don't have any right to make such demands. The point is that for the state to stop mothers from dropping their kids off at school without a full background check is really invasive.

TETENAL · Jul 11, 2008, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I think was TETENAL was getting at is that the passive voice is often a kind of weasel-wording — it can make it less obvious when you're leaving out details.

Exactly. And that article is full of it.

"A woman was prevented from taking her son to school by taxi."

Who prevented her. The police? A judge? The taxi driver?

"She was told she was not allowed to do so without a criminal background check."

Who told her that? The school? A judge? Her uncle?

The article leaves that out – either because of sloppy research or to make the story sound more outrageous than it really is. Now there is a tiny bit in that article that makes me think I know what really happened. It says these background checks are for people who work with children. So what probably happened is that she wanted to be payed or compensated by some government agency for the care work she does for her son. And that's why they asked for the criminal background check. That's not really anything unusual for an employer to ask for. Nobody would prevent the mother from taking her son to school if she paid for the taxi herself.

Now if that really is the situation here we don't know, because, as I said, the article leaves out all the important stuff by clever use of the passive voice. For effect and pageviews.

Uncle Doof · Jul 13, 2008, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

It says these background checks are for people who work with children.

But in reality, everyone is being forced into them.

For example, if you're car sharing the school run (you take friends' kids one day, next day they take yours), you need a check.

Not so long back, a woman was stopped from kissing her own kid goodbye as the kid got on the bus for a school trip.

Who's enforcing it? All the jumped up little busybodies working for schools and councils. With some help from the paranoid public (remember, this is a country where a huge lynch mob showed up and started vandalising a paediatrician's house).

red rocket · Jul 14, 2008, 04:26 AM

They said something on the radio, a week or so back, that ties into this.

Children’s football games. When I was a boy, parents used to share in driving kids to away games, four to five in each car. Apparently, you’re not allowed to just do that any more; if you want to transport more than two children that aren’t yours, you need to be checked by the Criminal Records Bureau.

I’m glad I don’t have to be a child today, the nanny state has ruined the experience.

Uncle Doof · Jul 14, 2008, 05:10 AM

Interesting that the two Google ads I get at the top of the page are for:

https://www.disclosures.co.uk/
http://www.criminalrecordchecks.co.uk/

Someone's got their snout in the trough over this, for sure.

vmarks · Jul 16, 2008, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by red rocket

They said something on the radio, a week or so back, that ties into this.

Children’s football games. When I was a boy, parents used to share in driving kids to away games, four to five in each car. Apparently, you’re not allowed to just do that any more; if you want to transport more than two children that aren’t yours, you need to be checked by the Criminal Records Bureau.

I’m glad I don’t have to be a child today, the nanny state has ruined the experience.

Wow. I think back to the times that parents drove groups of children to birthday parties, or camping trips... no more, eh?

:shakes head:

olePigeon · Jul 16, 2008, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Oh, yeah, I don't have any right to make such demands. The point is that for the state to stop mothers from dropping their kids off at school without a full background check is really invasive.

That's why I'm skeptical, I don't think the story is explaining everything.

Uncle Doof · Jul 16, 2008, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

That's why I'm skeptical, I don't think the story is explaining everything.

Dude, every day is like April Fools' Day here. We really do have to check the date every time we open up a newspaper. One new (idiotic) law every two and a half hours.

philm · Jul 26, 2008, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof

Dude, every day is like April Fools' Day here. We really do have to check the date every time we open up a newspaper. One new (idiotic) law every two and a half hours.

I'm guessing you read the Daily Mail?