Jump to content

L'État nounou britannique frappe à nouveau


Recommended Posts

Maintenant, sans autorisation de l'État, il est interdit dans ce pays néohyperultralibéral de garder les enfants de son voisin pendant que ce dernier est au taf.

The policewoman branded an illegal childminder - for looking after her colleague’s toddler


A policewoman told last night how she was banned from looking after her colleague’s daughter because she was not a registered childminder.

Detective Constable Leanne Shepherd was ordered by the education watchdog Ofsted to end her private arrangement with her friend, DC Lucy Jarrett, or they would face prosecution.

The Thames Valley Police detectives – who gave birth within a few months of each other – share a job at Aylesbury Police Station in Buckinghamshire.

But the mothers, both 32, have now been told by Ofsted that surveillance teams will spy on their homes to make sure they are not continuing to care for each other’s daughter.

For the past two-and-a-half years, one looked after both of the girls while the other worked a ten-hour shift. Both worked two days a week.

But in July, after a complaint believed to be from a neighbour, DC Shepherd received a surprise visit from an Ofsted inspector, who accused her of running an ‘illegal childminding business’.

Rules state that friends cannot gain a ‘reward’ by looking after a child for more than two hours outside the child’s home unless they register with Ofsted and follow the same regulations as normal childminders.

Under the rules, reward is defined as ‘the supply of service or goods’ or ‘reciprocal arrangement’. The mothers were told their ‘reward’ was free care for their daughters.

A petition on the 10 Downing Street website calling for the regulations to be scrapped had already received almost 2,000 signatures last night.

An Ofsted spokesman said: ‘Ofsted applies the regulations in the 2006 Childcare Act. We are discussing with the Department for Children, Schools and Families the interpretation of the word “reward” to establish if we might be able to make a change.’

In the meantime DC Shepherd, of Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, has had to put her two-year-old daughter Edie in a nursery costing £260 a month and change her work schedule, which she claims has placed an ‘extra burden’ on her already overworked colleagues.

DC Shepherd, who is separated from Edie’s father, DC James Shepherd, said the childcare arrangement worked because her ex-husband and DC Jarrett’s husband, Inspector Bob Jarrett, both worked irregular shifts.

She said: ‘I gave birth in November 2006 and went back to work part-time in April 2007 as a trainee detective constable. Lucy had returned to work part-time five months before, and was also a trainee detective constable.

‘We were the same rank, worked in the same station, had daughters the same age and were close friends, so it made sense to job-share. We would split the 40-hour week, both working two ten-hour days, and the arrangement was working perfectly.

‘Our job is very demanding and sometimes I’m required to work overtime.

'It would be difficult to get a childminder to stay late after a ten-hour day. Besides, it would have cost a fortune.’

And DC Shepherd added: ‘Most importantly, our arrangement was ideal for the kids. Edie and Lucy’s daughter Amy have become like sisters and love spending time with each other.

‘When the Ofsted inspector turned up, the first thing she said was, “I have had a report that you’re running an illegal childminding business.”

‘I straightaway thought she must be mistaken, so invited her into my home to explain that we were police officers and best friends helping each other out.

‘But she told me I was breaking the law and must end the arrangement with Lucy immediately. I was stunned – completely devastated. I spent the whole day crying because I couldn’t see how I could continue working.’

DC Shepherd claims she has received a letter from Ofsted telling her she would be subjected to random surveillance to make sure she was not continuing to care for her friend’s daughter.

She said: ‘The first month’s nursery fees were £260, which is a huge expense considering I only earn just over £900 a month. I cannot understand why the Government is punishing me for wanting to get back to work and pay tax.

‘Now I’ve applied for childcare benefits to pay the nursery fees. This ridiculous legislation needs to be reviewed. There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of mothers wanting to do the best for their children who have no idea they are breaking the law.’

DC Jarrett, who lives in Buckingham, now also sends her daughter to nursery on the days she works.

She said: ‘I think I know best how to look after my own daughter. I’d rather my best friend look after her than a complete stranger.’

Dr Richard House, founder of the Open EYE Campaign, which wants fewer restrictions on childminders, said: ‘This extraordinary edict from Ofsted is the latest example of a pervasive and deeply worrying trend towards Government becoming ever more closely involved in micro-managing parental and family decisions.’

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

De toute manière en ce moment chez les british, on "database" tout ce qui bouge pour sauver les enfants. Il faut se déclarer (en payant) dès que l'on approche des enfants qui ne sont pas les siens…

C'est déjà vraiment effrayant sans fuite de données.. mais en plus compte de nombre de personnes qui auront accès à ces bases, celle sera une vraie passoire.


Why the Vetting and Barring Scheme is pure madness

There are a host of reasons why the Government's plan to protect children via a vast database, under the new Vetting and Barring Scheme, is monumentally ill-judged, claims Alasdair Palmer.

By Alasdair Palmer

Published: 6:12PM BST 12 Sep 2009

Comments 148 | Comment on this article

The claim that a government policy amounts to a form of madness usually turns out to be merely rhetoric. But last week, ministers proudly unveiled a new which actually is mad, or at the very least wildly irrational. It will not achieve its stated purposes; it will impose enormous costs for no benefit whatever; and it will harm a very large number of people, including many of those it is meant to help.

The Vetting and Barring Scheme, to be implemented by an Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), comes into operation next month. Delyth Morgan, the Children’s Minister, says that “it is about ensuring that people in a position of trust who work frequently and intensively with children are safe to do so”. It’s hard to quarrel with that aim – but the problems start with the means chosen to achieve it.

The new law requires everyone who has regular contact with children, as a result of an association with some form of organisation other than their family, to be approved by the Government after registering on a state-run database.

Suppose, for instance, that you volunteer to drive children to a football practice organised by a school or a youth club, or you take kids to Boy Scouts or Girl Guides – then you will have to register. If you fail to do so, you will be liable to a £5,000 fine.

Once it receives your application, the ISA will invite people to submit information about you. The ISA’s officials will be looking for any claim to the effect that you have done something which might have caused “physical, emotional, financial or developmental harm” to a child. Don’t ask for a definition of such “harm”, for there is none – the term will be interpreted in any way the Government’s assessors choose.

Those assessors will not be required to ascertain whether or not “harm” actually took place, nor whether you were in fact the cause of it. They will only have to come up with a measurement of the seriousness of the harm you might have caused: a number between one and five. Then they will have to put a number (also between one and five) on the likelihood that you’ll do something similar again. Those two numbers will then be used to determine whether it is safe to allow you to drive your child and three of his friends to that football practice.

The procedure is lunatic: it won’t, except by chance, result in accurate assessments. The Government says it is justified because it will help prevent another child killer like Ian Huntley, the murderer of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. This is blatantly false. The problem with Huntley wasn’t a failure to put him on an official list of potential paedophiles: he was on such a list. The problem was that the police force that had the information failed to pass it on to the school in Soham that hired him.

Incompetence of that kind will, inevitably, be a feature of the ISA. The task of inputting and assessing data on 11 million individuals will be given to just 200 officials. Does any one seriously imagine that the result will be more accurate and effective than, say, the Child Support Agency – which, when it was first set up, made errors in around 50 per cent of the cases with which it dealt?

Furthermore, there is a simple way to dodge the new vetting procedure: use a false name. It is the oldest trick in the paedophile’s book – Huntley himself used it – and nothing in the new vetting procedures will do anything at all to detect it.

Even more important, most child abuse actually happens in “informal” settings: in family homes, rather than during activities organised by schools or clubs. The new vetting procedures will do nothing whatsoever to diminish abuse in the home. They will, however, drive adults away from volunteering to supervise activities which involve children – and that will certainly diminish the opportunities available to children and harm some of them to a significant degree.

Why is such a policy, involving huge costs and absolutely no benefits, being imposed? Simple: this time, ministers really have gone mad.

Link to comment

Ils vont essayer de bidouiller la loi mais ca ne marchera pas evidemment. On reconnait les mauvaises loi facilement car elles ont besoin d'etre patchees par de nombreuses exceptions. En particulier les tentatives de separer les activites privees des activites commerciales sont vouees a l'echec.

Link to comment
Ca vous parait incroyable qu'on dénonce des flics?

Oui, et c'est difficile de dire si c'est lie a leur profession ou pas.

Ca peut aussi bien etre une baby-sitter certifiee qui trouve pas normal qu'on lui prenne "son" boulot, et qui defend ses interets. Ou bien une militante qui a fait ca "pour le bien des enfants".

Dans tout les cas, cette loi absurde me semble difficile a faire appliquer sans la complicite d'une partie de la population.

Link to comment

Je crois que c'est ce qui est en train d'arriver en Suisse :

Refus unanime de l'autorisation pour garder un enfant (20mins)

J'aime bien la légende de la photo :

"Confier son enfant à un inconnu deviendra un parcours du combattant."

Mais LOL, confier son mouflet même 5 secondes à un inconnu, de toute façon, ça mérite une enclume sur la tête. N'importe quoi, cette légende, par rapport au projet qui vise à réglementer notamment la garde chez les oncles & tantes, la parentèle plus éloignée je présume, les voisins et les amis.

Dans tout les cas, cette loi absurde me semble difficile a faire appliquer sans la complicite d'une partie de la population.

Je parierais presque que les "délateurs" chouineront en parallèle sur le manque d'implication des parents dans l'éducation de leurs mômes. :icon_up:

Link to comment


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...