Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Mmm i thought your doctrine was if you cannot look after your own children you shouldn't have them?.......shoes said:Fair enough. I suppose the point of contention will be after school clubs held at a parent's home, for example when I was a nipper I went to a friend's house after school (was picked up by their parents along with their son) for two hours whilst my parents finished work. The parent I stayed with was not affiliated with the school at all except in this way and along with me, another two boys also stayed for the same reason. As far as I'm aware no money was ever exchanged and it was purely done as a favour amongst friends.Gramaisc said:No. You can do what you like at home. Communal school runs are an issue, though. They are vague about where the tipping point is.shoes said:What about people who are in the situation where you have a partner with kids and you look after them when s/he is away or working or whatever, do you have to have disclosure then too?
I appreciate from the story that the car journey alone warrants the disclosure, however what about the 'club' held at home, would that be seen as visiting friends or as a potential 'situation'?
I guess we shall have to wait and see how this pans out.
It is.basil said:Mmm i thought your doctrine was if you cannot look after your own children you shouldn't have them?.......
Fair comments, I agree with you that the proposed system would have made no difference in this case, which makes it very odd that it is cited as a hefty reason for it.Gramaisc said:No, it wasn't!
Back to the thread. I believe that I am correct in saying that the Soham girls could have come into contact with Ian Huntley even if the new system was in operation then, as the conduit for the meeting was his teaching assistant girlfriend and, if he had chosen to work in a non-checked environment, rather than the other school, then nobody would have checked him, even if he had been convicted.
Make your mind up, either the kids are looked after or not, now if you or any other kids get 'farmed' out, where do the parents stand? or are there sub-sections still to be written/fantasised ?...........shoes said:How did you come to that conclusion? My problem is people on benefits having kids, or more likely, more kids. In fact I'd go as far as to say that I am sure I have mentioned that part of my regime would incorporate having employment as a prerequisite for having children.
come on basil, i don't agree with shoes' proposed regime in the slightest, but even i can see you are trying to make a point here where there isn't one..basil said:Make your mind up, either the kids are looked after or not, now if you or any other kids get 'farmed' out, where do the parents stand? or are there sub-sections still to be written/fantasised ?...........shoes said:How did you come to that conclusion? My problem is people on benefits having kids, or more likely, more kids. In fact I'd go as far as to say that I am sure I have mentioned that part of my regime would incorporate having employment as a prerequisite for having children.