Dear All
The back door scheme to create a national ID register took a predictable turn when the head of a government scheme to vet adults spoke out about what a jolly good idea it was.
Sir Roger Singleton, chairman of the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), says people need to "calm down" and consider the issue "rationally".
How rational is the presumption of guilty until proven innocent?
Another point is that a register already exists to stop paedophiles getting access to children called the sex offenders register.
So, is Singleton saying that the sex offenders register doesn’t work?
If it doesn’t exactly how is his paedophile database MK2 better?
The Home Office's Vetting and Barring Scheme, which is designed to protect children from paedophiles but in order for it to work, the people taking part have to tell the truth.
That is the flaw in the system and that flaw gives no guarantees.
So, do the public have the right to be angry about paying a £100 a year to prove they are not a paedophile?
At present, Singleton says that volunteers pay nothing but as with anything that the Labour Party brings in, the cost will be introduced later.
Recently, an elderly woman took a heart attack on a bus I was travelling on; I think that would class her as a vulnerable adult.
I gave her CPR in an attempt to save her life until the ambulance arrived.
Could I be fined £5,000 because in the process of doing CPR I was in “intense” contact with her?
We have a sex offenders register so why does a quarter of the population need to be vetted?
I would say this “agency” is nothing more than a Torjan horse for another attempt for a national ID card register at a future date.
Singleton said;
"It is not about subjecting a quarter of the population to intensive scrutiny of their personal lives and it is not about creating mistrust between adults and children or discouraging volunteering."
It is about subjecting a quarter of the population of the population to intense scrutiny; note how he adds two points together to attempt to justify.
He added;
"It is about ensuring that those people who have already been dismissed by their employers for inappropriate behaviour with children do not simply up sticks and move elsewhere in the country to continue their abuse”.
This statement is bizarre, is he actually suggesting that if an employer stigmatises someone without a due process of law that is acceptable?
How is that different from guilty until proven innocent?
This scheme will deter volunteering; it will be effectively a tax on not being a paedophile.
How much more disgusting can these clowns get?
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
The back door scheme to create a national ID register took a predictable turn when the head of a government scheme to vet adults spoke out about what a jolly good idea it was.
Sir Roger Singleton, chairman of the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), says people need to "calm down" and consider the issue "rationally".
How rational is the presumption of guilty until proven innocent?
Another point is that a register already exists to stop paedophiles getting access to children called the sex offenders register.
So, is Singleton saying that the sex offenders register doesn’t work?
If it doesn’t exactly how is his paedophile database MK2 better?
The Home Office's Vetting and Barring Scheme, which is designed to protect children from paedophiles but in order for it to work, the people taking part have to tell the truth.
That is the flaw in the system and that flaw gives no guarantees.
So, do the public have the right to be angry about paying a £100 a year to prove they are not a paedophile?
At present, Singleton says that volunteers pay nothing but as with anything that the Labour Party brings in, the cost will be introduced later.
Recently, an elderly woman took a heart attack on a bus I was travelling on; I think that would class her as a vulnerable adult.
I gave her CPR in an attempt to save her life until the ambulance arrived.
Could I be fined £5,000 because in the process of doing CPR I was in “intense” contact with her?
We have a sex offenders register so why does a quarter of the population need to be vetted?
I would say this “agency” is nothing more than a Torjan horse for another attempt for a national ID card register at a future date.
Singleton said;
"It is not about subjecting a quarter of the population to intensive scrutiny of their personal lives and it is not about creating mistrust between adults and children or discouraging volunteering."
It is about subjecting a quarter of the population of the population to intense scrutiny; note how he adds two points together to attempt to justify.
He added;
"It is about ensuring that those people who have already been dismissed by their employers for inappropriate behaviour with children do not simply up sticks and move elsewhere in the country to continue their abuse”.
This statement is bizarre, is he actually suggesting that if an employer stigmatises someone without a due process of law that is acceptable?
How is that different from guilty until proven innocent?
This scheme will deter volunteering; it will be effectively a tax on not being a paedophile.
How much more disgusting can these clowns get?
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
No comments:
Post a Comment