Parents incrementally losing rights

[MikeMangum]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-children-playgrounds--case-paedophiles.html

Parents are being banned from playing with their children in council recreation areas because they have not been vetted by police.
Mothers and fathers are being forced to watch their children from outside perimeter fences because of fears they could be paedophiles.
Watford Council was branded a 'disgrace' yesterday after excluding parents from two fenced-off adventure playgrounds unless they first undergo criminal record checks.

Children as young as five will instead be supervised by council 'play rangers' who have been cleared by the Criminal Records Bureau.

Councillors insist they are merely following Government regulations and cannot allow adults to walk around playgrounds 'unchecked'.

Is it just me, or does it seem that more and more, governments are trying to take on the role of parents and incrementally squeezing actual parents out of the loop when it comes to making decisions regarding their own children. Notice how the government will provide "play rangers" to watch your children at the playground for you all while keeping you OUT, unless you get permission from the government to be with or play with your own children.

 

[Vermonter]

This reminds me of the South Park episode when the kids had all of the parents get taken away on false charges of sexual abuse. The city was deserted and the kids took over and destroyed it in a matter of days.

 

[richardm]

The Daily Mail is complaining about "hysteria over child protection."



The places in question are "Drop-In" centres for children, where the intention is that they should be left there by their parents for supervised play. It does not seem entirely unreasonable that any adults who want to be in there should be subject to whatever checks are deemed necessary by law - not least because if you left your child under supervision and they were abducted by a paedophile while under that supervision you'd have plenty to say about it (probably couched in terms about how useless all government employees are).

Probably the most important thing to note is that the requirement is only there for the drop-in centres - ordinary playgrounds operated by the council are not affected.

And the story about Conkers that's linked to the story is lies as well.

I don't suppose I should be surprised really.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Isn't this the same country that has all those notorious boarding schools? I guess the point is that since your kids must be molested some time, it's best to save it for a "public" school education so at least they're molested by the upper classes.

 

[richardm]

Isn't this the same country that has all those notorious boarding schools? I guess the point is that since your kids must be molested some time, it's best to save it for a "public" school education so at least they're molested by the upper classes.

Exactly - that's character building for Decent Types, whereas these people are poor and must be protected from themselves.

Frankly I'm quite surprised that the Mail didn't comment about bloody immigrants coming over here and criticising our Criminal Records Bureau.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

This is an interesting situation. How did such policies come about that are being interpeted in this way? My assumption would be that these policies come from public demands that public play areas be protected from pedophiles. Essentially these play areas have been turned into outdoor child care facilities. While I disagree with turning public parks into such, I can see certain movements of people wanting to take a advantage of that.

EDIT: So these were already "drop-off" play areas? This seems like a natural and normal liability policy for such an area.

 

[richardm]

Essentially these play areas have been turned into outdoor child care facilities. While I disagree with turning public parks into such, I can see certain movements of people wanting to take a advantage of that.

These two play areas were set up specifically in order to provide a secure environment for children to play in. They are within a park, not the whole park. I very much doubt that there is the desire -let alone the budget - to turn all play areas in the country into this sort of controlled area.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Yes, that does seem normal. I wrote my post before seeing the further posts pointing out these were already separate areas intended to be protected zones.

 

[richardm]

Yes, that does seem normal. I wrote my post before seeing the further posts pointing out these were already separate areas intended to be protected zones.

Yeah, I saw your update As soon as I saw that the article was from the Daily Mail I had the suspicion that it would be misleading in some way, and lo and behold it was. The Mail's SOP these days seems to be finding something that can be misrepresented and misrepresenting it in the most inflammatory way possible.

The trouble is that people pick up on the Mail story and spam it all over the internet and even other press publications, and it becomes yet another "Aren't these liberals tossers" tale; like the lies about the conkers and the "Winterval" lights, which now that Christmas is approaching will no doubt be trotted out yet again. But people keep buying the bloody rag. Outrage is fun, I suppose.

 

[JWideman]

It's the Daily Fail, the British equivalent of Faux News.

 

[Dancing David]

The places in question are "Drop-In" centres for children, where the intention is that they should be left there by their parents for supervised play.

So thesed are not 'playgrounds' in the sense of a public park where there are some swings and a slide.

These are play grounds in the sense of 'child care center'?

 

[richardm]

So thesed are not 'playgrounds' in the sense of a public park where there are some swings and a slide.

These are play grounds in the sense of 'child care center'?

Yep.

Which is why the article is only talking about two "playgrounds" - the two supervised centres where there are some pretty good bits of play equipment that you wouldn't get in an ordinary playground. There are of course dozens and dozens of ordinary playgrounds throughout Watford which aren't affected by this rule at all.

 

[INRM]

I think this is over the top.

 

[Beerina]

I presume there have been a spate of pedophile abuses in these types of playgrounds, or kidnappings from same.

I mean, nobody would come up with a new law like this out of the blue, with no supporting evidence, right?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think this is over the top.

Yea next thing you know you will outlaw parents going to school with their children and spending the whole day in class with them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I presume there have been a spate of pedophile abuses in these types of playgrounds, or kidnappings from same.

I mean, nobody would come up with a new law like this out of the blue, with no supporting evidence, right?

Keep in mind that you would class these whole things as unethical anyway. It is goverment run daycare after all.

 

[The Don]

I presume there have been a spate of pedophile abuses in these types of playgrounds, or kidnappings from same.

I mean, nobody would come up with a new law like this out of the blue, with no supporting evidence, right?

"Baby P" has thrown everyone who has anything to do with childcare into a tizzy-fit. The local councils know what they're doing is a waste of time but they're obliged to to it to keep the screaming media at bay. After all "Convincted Paedophile hanging out at council run daycare centre" doesn't make for a pretty headline and that's what the Mail would be screaming if anyone on the sex offenders' register was found within a mile of the place.

With the hysterical media, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't

 

[roger]

The places in question are "Drop-In" centres for children, where the intention is that they should be left there by their parents for supervised play. It does not seem entirely unreasonable that any adults who want to be in there should be subject to whatever checks are deemed necessary by law - not least because if you left your child under supervision and they were abducted by a paedophile while under that supervision you'd have plenty to say about it (probably couched in terms about how useless all government employees are).

So I assume it is also fine to remove parents from the following:

• little league
• schools
• swim meets
• gymnasium practice and meets
• girl scouts
• boy scouts
• church events
• city parks
• NFS ranger hikes and events
• etc

It's madness.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Hmm, read as far as 'Daily Mail' before I realised the story would be a lie or gross exaggeration and lo and behold they didn't disappoint.

Not to mention that the reason all these daft rules are in place in the first place is because 'newspapers' such as the Daily Mail would be demanding everyone from the daycare centre cleaner right up to the prime minister was hung drawn and quartered if some dirty old man as much as looked at a kid in the centre the wrong way.

They can't have it both ways. They scare people into believing there is a bogeyman on every street corner then get up in arms when steps are taken to protect them for their invented threat.

Of course, they DO want it both ways. As always they want OTHER PEOPLE to be denied freedom to do what they want so that they can live their lives unhindered by anything.

The Daily Mail are ****s of the highest order. Cancer is too good for them.

 

[The Don]

So I assume it is also fine to remove parents from the following:

• little league *
• schools
• swim meets
• gymnasium practice and meets *
• girl scouts *
• boy scouts *
• church events
• city parks
• NFS ranger hikes and events
• etc

It's madness.

In the UK, someone filling the roles marked with an asterisk would require a Criminal Records Bureau check

The boy scouts and girl guides have a terrible history of attracting paedophiles and as for the church ?