.Unless you have been Police checked.



news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8249020.stm

This goes back to that Esther Rancid comment on Woman's Hour - "would you want Jonathan King let loose on your children?".

The barmy species, whipped up into a frenzy of hysteria by the salacious tabloids, ably assisted by the police, who want to raise their conviction rates please, and the law, which enjoys the attention rather than justice, is being driven politely to the edge of the cliff, like lemmings.

Instead of spending tax money on real problems, let's waste it on headline morality.

Simple is so much better as a story, even if complex is the reality.

They do say that it's only if the drive has been "organised", not if it's on a casual family/friend level, but it is still very sinister. There is a creeping nature to such legislation. At each step they say that it will only effect certain groups, but then the next step ensnares more groups. I can see this leading to checks on everyone who lives next door to a child, everyone who lives within a certain radius of a school or any place where children gather. Eventually, all parents will have to be checked because their kids will make friends with other kids who they might be a threat to. Then there's the fact that background checks do not prove what kind of person you are, just that you haven't been caught or accused yet. There are more negatives than positives in this policy. We now have children living in fear of every adult. We have fewer adults working with children, providing fewer activities or opportunities for children. We have a society built on fear and suspicion.

The government claim they are not assuming guilt. The government's actions, however, prove the opposite. If you insist that someone must prove their innocence before they can work with children, then you are obviously assuming a guilt of some kind. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. This government have used children as an excuse to abandon the core principles upon which our society has been built over many centuries.

Once again, people are using the "If you have nothing to hide .." argument to try justify the unjustifiable. Why is it necessary to have something to hide in order to oppose injustice? If I knock on the door of Number 10 Downing Street and demand access so that I can search for child porn, because someone hinted to me that there might be some there, I'm sure the PM would object very strongly and deny me such access. So I could then ask him what he has to hide. No doubt he would be very angry at the suggestion, and so he should be. Yet the government put us ordinary folk in that position every day.

One in four people are expected to be required to undergo police checks by next summer. That's a quarter of the way to having every citizen on a national database, without officially introducing a national database.

Every British citizen now has reason to feel afraid and insecure. Only a complete idiot hasn't already seen the tide of government oppression creeping towards them. And with a fragmented opposition, there seems very little that can stop it.

Where are the decent and moral backbenchers with the backbone to stand up for the people against this evil? And why do the journalists all tow the government line and not ask the obvious awkward questions?

Absolutely agree, Emma, and the worst part is that our children will inherit the paranoid society which this government are creating. It will take decades to undo their damage. Children will grow up believing they can trust very few adults and with very limited interaction so that when they become adults themselves they'll have virtually no ability to cope with relationships and situations. From this angle, what the government is doing is in itself a form of long term child abuse.

Politicians seem to be seriously lacking in foresight. Either that or they just don't care.

Right now they want total control and will manipulate anything, including children, in order to achieve it. If they genuinely did care about children they would think things through more carefully and would not be introducing such insane policies.

Great postings, one and all. A real pleasure to read and steadfast common sense throughout. Thank you.

Superb posts I agree with Locked Out totally.

So what do we do ?

I propose that EVERYONE boycotts this DATABASE. By doing this they cant implement it. They have not got room in the courts system to prosecute 11 million people.

We all need to stand together on this one and destroy it.

This is the worst law EVERY passed in our country since its conception.

Anyone who laughed about the NAZI tendencies of BROWN and his JUNTA is not laughing now. Even those who agreed with CRB checks ( having been promised that they would never be rolled out for the general population ) now have egg on their face.

This is the start of an ID CARD for everyone where we are prisoners in our own homes - surveilled - and eventually chipped.

Remind me........which NUTTY PERSON predicted this in the early 1990s and said he had seen the plan......yes - our friend DAVID ICKE.

I urge you all to get THE BIGGEST SECRET and read it with an open mind. Start to see the agenda and see how THEY have tried to BRAINWASH all of us.

You can get it direct from the ICKE website. If you have not read it - then it will explain to you the TRUE Paedo position in society - it will explain the plans that are coming and that have already happened.

We as a society are in GREAT DANGER. This group of people ( we call them the NWO ) do actually exist. They are not a delusion. Just look around you - you can see their work and their ever increasing reach into our lives. They aim to take over the World and have us all chipped. Why you say ? well the truth about that you wont believe sadly - I find it hard to believe myself.

Finally Since posting the post yesterday my INTERNET ACCESS has been destroyed ( I am on a mobile internet connection today )

The "Powers that be " obviously did not want me posting today. Cutting off my internet is a blunt way of control - yes they have my number ! That is where we are up to in society - a Police State of which even Hitler would have been envious

Of course, the people who won't boycott this will be those with paedophile tendencies - not discovered or revealed (surely the vast majority) who will like the idea of having an officially sanctioned licence to pick up potential victims.

"You're quite safe, darling, I've got a £64 Government licence".

Licence to abuse for £64.

Have we gone barking mad? Hasn't anybody worked this out?

I predict months rather than years after this happens, if it does go through, when the Sun has a headline PERVERT MURDERER HAD GOVERNMENT £64 PERMISSION FOR CRIMES.

and of course Ian Huntley would have been cleared by these checks

So now the 12 y/o with a no car family cannot go to a sports event with his mate unless his mate's parents are cleared


as Nan Taylor would say "wat a load of old shit"

At this moment the Conservatives are speaking out against this. Doubt whether they will change it if they get into power though.

well actually JK "would you want Jonathan King let loose on your children?"..I would actually be a bit wary in case you made them wear these hideous wigs of yours or sing that frigging Paloma Blanca song...but in fact I would have been delighted to let my 2 kids (now grown up) hang around with you as I reckon they would receive an education better than any bloody expensive private school.

Oddest thing is..all my friends are very weird..gay/straight/lesbian/undecided/somewhere in between and my children were brought up around them and are very happy adults..oddly..they are pretty straight to my thinking..I mean they have proper jobs etc...nothing like I ever did so I think the very best thing you could do is let your kids hang around with a fabulous variety of weirdos !!

I must admit-BR's New World Order is looking not-so-strange by the day.

It is more likely to be scrapped under a Tory government than if Labour continue in power. Same with ID cards, the DNA database and a host of other evils schemes. We could ho-hum and decide it's not worth voting because things might not change, but there's no way other parties can prove what they'll do until they are elected to office. They won't be elected unless we vote the current lot out.

"Even those like Huntley, without a criminal record, could be barred if officials are convinced by other "soft intelligence" against them."

Surely that is the most sinister quote of all. What would this "soft intelligence" constitute? Unfounded allegations, rumours, merely being of eccentric character? That surely is the politics of the witch hunt. Stalin, Hitler and the Witchfinder General will be smiling in their graves.

This law was borne out of the fact that Ian Huntley was working as a school caretaker, even though he had a history of complaints from under age girls. Huntley went on to murder 2 young girls (please don't try and defend Ian Huntley).

robbiex wrote:
This law was borne out of the fact that Ian Huntley was working as a school caretaker, even though he had a history of complaints from under age girls. Huntley went on to murder 2 young girls (please don't try and defend Ian Huntley).
I have no interest in defending Huntley. The fact that everyone still knows the name Ian Huntley seven years after his crime proves how rare people like him are. Do you really think this justifies the persecution of people who have had complaints made against them, which could have been entirely fictitious, and in any event have led to no prosecution? This law has piled more grease onto a slippery slope which this country is already sliding down.

Why should the rest of us be treated like this because of one person ?

The point is this : Huntley would have passed a CRB and this check. There was no record of any allegations against him - they were dug up by the press. He would have passed every check possible.

In fact this law will just drive the real PAEDOs even further underground. They will carry on doing what they do and laugh at the rest of society having to pay for to prove they are innocent.

In the UK we used to be INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY. Now we have pay for a check to prove we are trustworthy around others. That is quite ridiculous.

This is the most NAZI FASCIST law ever passed by any democracy in history. It will go down as the LOW POINT Of the New Labour disaster.

New Labour have led to the DIRECT death of MILLIONS of innocent men women AND children.

I would like to allege that EVERY NEW LABOUR MP has the blood on their hands of at least 100,000 IRAQUI children. That MUST be on their CRIMINAL CHECKS.

No one should ever employ or let a NEW LABOUR Politician or supporter near their family. They are PURE SCUM.

In addition after DE MENEZES and TOMLINSON no Policeman should be allowed to work near anyone of an ethnic or working class and especially children. Their records should also show these FACTS.

It is worse than that. It will assist and enable child abuse.

An intelligent predator without any previous problems will deliberately buy a licence for £64 and children will trust someone who says "it is fine to come with me - look, here's my government licence".

It is an incredibly stupid and dangerous development; guaranteed to increase abuse and murder.

Huntley would have applied for (and been given) a licence.

Under the current system, even if Huntley had not been convicted of murder, he would have failed a CRB check because he had past allegations against him even though he had never been charged. This is what is meant by soft intelligence. Decisions are based on suggestion, gossip and innuendo. This is a giant step backwards for Britain, dismantling centuries of carefully constructed safeguards which were built into the legal system to protect the innocent. Now we are all guilty until we prove otherwise.

The Soham investigation was sloppy, and it's consequences have been worse than disastrous. I cannot say with 100% certainty that Ian Huntley was guilty, but his case has been used, along with that of Sarah Payne, as an emotional leverage to further remove the rights of the British people and to introduce laws which the Victorians would have viewed as draconian.

Fair point about the "soft intelligence" Francis - but the predator of the future, now knowing this new law, would either not apply (if there is soft - or hard - intelligence) and find another way to get victims or would apply to get the government approval for abducting - oops, sorry, driving - children.

It is mad as well as immoral.