http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216220/Mothers-banned-looking-children.html

Mothers are banned from looking after each other's children
By Sarah Harris

------------
Two working mothers have been banned from looking after each other's
toddlers because they are not registered childminders.

The close friends' private arrangement had let them both return to
part-time jobs at the same company.

However, a whistleblower reported them to the education watchdog
Ofsted and it found their informal deal broke the law.
 Two working mothers have been banned from looking after each other's
toddlers because they are not registered childminders (a file picture
above)
This was because little-known rules say friends cannot gain a 'reward'
by looking after a child for more than two hours outside the child's
home without agreeing to a number of checks including one from the
Criminal Records Bureau.

Although the mothers never paid each other, their job-sharing deal was
judged to be a 'reward'. Campaigners fear thousands of working
families could be innocently breaking the rules by relying on close
friends for informal childcare.

A Downing Street petition in protest at the treatment of the two
mothers has already received 1,600 signatures.

Educational campaigner Dr Richard House labelled the case as
'absolutely scandalous'.

He said: 'There is no conceivable rationale behind it. It's like
making the assumption that all parents are paedophiles and they have
to prove that they aren't. As soon as we create a society like that
then family life ceases. Parents have to have the confidence to make
their own choices about their own children. This is absolutely
extraordinary.'

The women, who have not been identified, had given birth at similar
times. When their daughters passed their first birthday, they decided
to return to work part-time at the same firm.

 More...Take problem children away from their families 'sooner rather
than later' urges female MP
Traffic warden 'badgered mother to move her car' as she tried to stop
her baby from choking to death

The colleagues agreed to look after each other's children as part of
the job share. They are said to be 'very good friends' and the girls
were so close they had grown up 'like sisters'.

However, it is understood that someone believed they were acting
illegally as childminders and reported them to Ofsted.

The women have now put their girls into official childcare 'meaning
they can't work as they wished due to the elevated costs', friends
say.

Ofsted regulations state that where a person cares for at least one
child for 'reward' in their own house for more than two hours in any
one day they must be registered with them as childminders.

Reward is interpreted as 'the supply of services or goods' or
'reciprocal arrangements, not just money changing hands.

The rules particularly affect close friends because relatives, such as
grandparents, do not have to register with Ofsted. Nor do nannies as
they provide childcare in a parent's house.

Some 1,654 people have signed the No10 petition, calling for a change
of the meaning of 'reward' to 'money and gifts' in the Childcare Act
to allow reciprocal deals.

A circular with the petition says: 'Caring for a child for reward is
classed as childminding and requires the carer to be registered with
Ofsted. In this case, Ofsted say that the reward is free childcare
when the mothers themselves go to work!'

It adds: 'In an age when the Government want women to return to work,
why is it made so difficult for people?'

An Ofsted spokesman confirmed it had been called in after a
complaint.

Children's Minister Vernon Coaker said: 'The legislation is in place
to ensure the safety and well-being of all children. But we need to be
sure it does not penalise hard-working families. My department is
discussing with Ofsted the interpretation of the word "reward".'



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216220/Mothers-banned-looking-children.html#ixzz0SFF1yDJZ

It doesn't seem to occur to these bums to say:

"The law is wrong. If that's the law, the government is a pile of
shit. We will not obey idiotic laws passed by shits. And I know I can
safely disobey this law and I will have the support of the community
in disobeying a shit law passed by imbeciles."

If human beings were sane, yes, we could say that.

But human beings are not sane, so we can't say anything like that.

The small number of sane people are very frightened today.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
 wrote:

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216220/Mothers-banned-looking-children.html
>
>Mothers are banned from looking after each other's children
>By Sarah Harris
>
<snip>


For once I agree with you completely.

The same article was in the Times today, and I could hardly believe
the idiocy as I read it.
<http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6850342.ece>

<snip>
>
>A circular with the petition says: 'Caring for a child for reward is
>classed as childminding and requires the carer to be registered with
>Ofsted. In this case, Ofsted say that the reward is free childcare
>when the mothers themselves go to work!'
>

This is the crux of the matter, and is utterly ridiculous, of course.

-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Free advice is worth what you pay for it
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
>  wrote:

> The same article was in the Times today, and I could hardly believe
> the idiocy as I read it.
> <http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6850342.ece>
>
> <snip>
>>
>> A circular with the petition says: 'Caring for a child for reward is
>> classed as childminding and requires the carer to be registered with
>> Ofsted. In this case, Ofsted say that the reward is free childcare
>> when the mothers themselves go to work!'
>>
>
> This is the crux of the matter, and is utterly ridiculous, of course.

I agree - this might be the moment when the rising tide of paedophobia has 
to be stopped

Special Care wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216220/Mothers-banned-looking-children.html
> 
> Mothers are banned from looking after each other's children
> By Sarah Harris
> 
> ------------
> Two working mothers have been banned from looking after each other's
> toddlers because they are not registered childminders.
> 
> The close friends' private arrangement had let them both return to
> part-time jobs at the same company.
> 
> However, a whistleblower reported them to the education watchdog
> Ofsted and it found their informal deal broke the law.
>  Two working mothers have been banned from looking after each other's
> toddlers because they are not registered childminders (a file picture
> above)
> This was because little-known rules say friends cannot gain a 'reward'
> by looking after a child for more than two hours outside the child's
> home without agreeing to a number of checks including one from the
> Criminal Records Bureau.
> 
> Although the mothers never paid each other, their job-sharing deal was
> judged to be a 'reward'. Campaigners fear thousands of working
> families could be innocently breaking the rules by relying on close
> friends for informal childcare.
> 
> A Downing Street petition in protest at the treatment of the two
> mothers has already received 1,600 signatures.
> 
> Educational campaigner Dr Richard House labelled the case as
> 'absolutely scandalous'.
> 
> He said: 'There is no conceivable rationale behind it. It's like
> making the assumption that all parents are paedophiles and they have
> to prove that they aren't. As soon as we create a society like that
> then family life ceases. Parents have to have the confidence to make
> their own choices about their own children. This is absolutely
> extraordinary.'
> 
> The women, who have not been identified, had given birth at similar
> times. When their daughters passed their first birthday, they decided
> to return to work part-time at the same firm.
> 
>  More...Take problem children away from their families 'sooner rather
> than later' urges female MP
> Traffic warden 'badgered mother to move her car' as she tried to stop
> her baby from choking to death
> 
> The colleagues agreed to look after each other's children as part of
> the job share. They are said to be 'very good friends' and the girls
> were so close they had grown up 'like sisters'.
> 
> However, it is understood that someone believed they were acting
> illegally as childminders and reported them to Ofsted.
> 
> The women have now put their girls into official childcare 'meaning
> they can't work as they wished due to the elevated costs', friends
> say.
> 
> Ofsted regulations state that where a person cares for at least one
> child for 'reward' in their own house for more than two hours in any
> one day they must be registered with them as childminders.
> 
> Reward is interpreted as 'the supply of services or goods' or
> 'reciprocal arrangements, not just money changing hands.
> 
> The rules particularly affect close friends because relatives, such as
> grandparents, do not have to register with Ofsted. Nor do nannies as
> they provide childcare in a parent's house.
> 
> Some 1,654 people have signed the No10 petition, calling for a change
> of the meaning of 'reward' to 'money and gifts' in the Childcare Act
> to allow reciprocal deals.
> 
> A circular with the petition says: 'Caring for a child for reward is
> classed as childminding and requires the carer to be registered with
> Ofsted. In this case, Ofsted say that the reward is free childcare
> when the mothers themselves go to work!'
> 
> It adds: 'In an age when the Government want women to return to work,
> why is it made so difficult for people?'
> 
> An Ofsted spokesman confirmed it had been called in after a
> complaint.
> 
> Children's Minister Vernon Coaker said: 'The legislation is in place
> to ensure the safety and well-being of all children. But we need to be
> sure it does not penalise hard-working families. My department is
> discussing with Ofsted the interpretation of the word "reward".'
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216220/Mothers-banned-looking-children.html#ixzz0SFF1yDJZ

It would be good to believe that at some point a lot of small worms are
going turn.

j

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
 wrote:

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216220/Mothers-banned-looking-children.html
>
>Mothers are banned from looking after each other's children
>By Sarah Harris

[snip]

You reckon this can't happen under New Labour's fascist-lite
monstrosity of a government now?

Slowly, inevitably, ordinary people are finding out what New Labour
has wrought upon this once tolerant country. A week or so ago the
outrage was all about vetting and barring, another scheme to assume
every adult is a paedophile without the bit of paper from the Stasi.
The government moved very quickly to stem that flood of criticism.
Maybe they will move this time, too.

Theoretically, Ofsted's stance should mean that boys and girls can't
have their friends to stay for more than two hours, and giving them
tea or supper could be classed as a 'reward' (since the other mother
won't need to feed her sprog again). Imagine! A democratic country
that demands neighbours and friends up and down the land shall get
themselves vetted and put on a database so that their children can
spend time at each other's houses. It is such a ludicrous situation,
I'm surprised people aren't already marching, not merely signing
petitions.

MM

Let's start with the usual caveat - it's in the Mail, it could be
bollocks. 

If this case is as reported, then one question - how the hell did we, as
a country - as a society - let things get to this? 

The two women are close friends - and that should be all the explanation
any official body needs for why they are looking after each other's
children like this... Didn't we all have aunts and uncles when we were
younger who, as it turned out, were not actual aunts and uncles? 

It looks like the regs go out of their way to ban this very situation -
according to the Mail they explicitly ban reciprical arrangements. I'm
sorry? Here we have two mothers who actually WANT to work, who leave
their kids with someone that actually CARES about them. And we're
getting in their way because? 

As for the surveillance aspect, I think they should be taking a very
good luck at whether OFSTED are complying with the (copious) law in that
area... This this a RIPA thing? 

Martin

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:04:24 -0700, Special Care wrote:

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216220/Mothers-banned-looking-children.html
> 

Well it is. An oppressive statute from an oppressive and vile government.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:24:09 +0100, "Steve Walker"
 wrote:

>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
>>  wrote:
>
>> The same article was in the Times today, and I could hardly believe
>> the idiocy as I read it.
>> <http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6850342.ece>
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> A circular with the petition says: 'Caring for a child for reward is
>>> classed as childminding and requires the carer to be registered with
>>> Ofsted. In this case, Ofsted say that the reward is free childcare
>>> when the mothers themselves go to work!'
>>>
>>
>> This is the crux of the matter, and is utterly ridiculous, of course.
>
>I agree - this might be the moment when the rising tide of paedophobia has 
>to be stopped

It should have been stopped in 2002 when the media had weeks and weeks
of coverage over the Soham murders. It has been allowed free rein
since then. There's an awful lot of rowing back to be done after at
least SEVEN years of hysteria.

MM

MM wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:24:09 +0100, "Steve Walker"
>  wrote:
>
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
>>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The same article was in the Times today, and I could hardly believe
>>> the idiocy as I read it.
>>> <http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6850342.ece>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> A circular with the petition says: 'Caring for a child for reward is
>>>> classed as childminding and requires the carer to be registered with
>>>> Ofsted. In this case, Ofsted say that the reward is free childcare
>>>> when the mothers themselves go to work!'
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is the crux of the matter, and is utterly ridiculous, of course.
>>
>> I agree - this might be the moment when the rising tide of paedophobia
>> has to be stopped
>
> It should have been stopped in 2002 when the media had weeks and weeks
> of coverage over the Soham murders. It has been allowed free rein
> since then. There's an awful lot of rowing back to be done after at
> least SEVEN years of hysteria.

I agree, but hopefully now that Paedogeddon* is impacting upon respectable 
people (and also some Daily Mail readers) the tone of media & political 
discourse will change.

* Copyright 2002, all rights reserved.  If you've enjoyed this moral panic, 
why not try "The War On Terror", "Super-strength Cannabis" or "Single 
Mothers on Benefits".   Log onto www.direct.gov.uk for a free sample!

In message , Steve Walker 
 writes
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
>>  wrote:
>
>> The same article was in the Times today, and I could hardly believe
>> the idiocy as I read it.
>> 
>><http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/artic
>>le6850342.ece>
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> A circular with the petition says: 'Caring for a child for reward is
>>> classed as childminding and requires the carer to be registered with
>>> Ofsted. In this case, Ofsted say that the reward is free childcare
>>> when the mothers themselves go to work!'
>>
>> This is the crux of the matter, and is utterly ridiculous, of course.
>
>I agree - this might be the moment when the rising tide of paedophobia has
>to be stopped

Why should it?

The demands at http://www.guarana.org/totc/ are as true and urgent now 
as they ever were.

-- 
< Paul >

In article , Martin Milan
 writes
>Let's start with the usual caveat - it's in the Mail, it could be 
>bollocks. 

Sunday Times as well.

Mike

-- 
Michael Swift           We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.      
Kirkheaton              We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.    
Yorkshire                                       Halvard Lange

Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> In message , Steve Walker
>  writes
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
>>>  wrote:
>>
>>> The same article was in the Times today, and I could hardly believe
>>> the idiocy as I read it.
>>>
>>> <http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/artic
>>> le6850342.ece>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> A circular with the petition says: 'Caring for a child for reward is
>>>> classed as childminding and requires the carer to be registered with
>>>> Ofsted. In this case, Ofsted say that the reward is free childcare
>>>> when the mothers themselves go to work!'
>>>
>>> This is the crux of the matter, and is utterly ridiculous, of course.
>>
>> I agree - this might be the moment when the rising tide of paedophobia
>> has to be stopped
>
> Why should it?
>
> The demands at http://www.guarana.org/totc/ are as true and urgent now
> as they ever were.

Glad to see someone's mirrored it

On Sep 26, 11:19 pm, djornsk  wrote:
>
> It would be good to believe that at some point a lot of small worms are
> going turn.
>

Don't hold your breath; so many of the sheeple are totally dependent
on State handouts these days that they're hardly to rock the
boat.......geese and golden eggs you see?

Michael Swift  wrote in news:TMQ
$uZAUK4vKFwo+@ntlworld.com:

> In article , Martin Milan
>  writes
>>Let's start with the usual caveat - it's in the Mail, it could be 
>>bollocks. 
> 
> Sunday Times as well.
> 
> Mike
> 

;-)

Alex Heney  posted
>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
> wrote:
>>Mothers are banned from looking after each other's children
>
>For once I agree with you completely.
>
>The same article was in the Times today, and I could hardly believe
>the idiocy as I read it.
><http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/articl
>e6850342.ece>
>

Looks like there's a comment there from our very own MM too :)

>>A circular with the petition says: 'Caring for a child for reward is
>>classed as childminding and requires the carer to be registered with
>>Ofsted. In this case, Ofsted say that the reward is free childcare
>>when the mothers themselves go to work!'
>
>This is the crux of the matter, and is utterly ridiculous, of course.

It isn't really the crux. The real crux is that the government now has 
the power to interfere in a responsible parent's childcare arrangements. 
The *only* time childcare is any business of the authorities is when the 
child suffers (or perhaps is at high risk of suffering) injury. Whether 
reward is involved is irrelevant.

-- 
Les
Conspiracy theory: A suspicion that officials sometimes mislead the public in
order to protect their own interests.

Martin Milan  posted
>The two women are close friends - and that should be all the explanation
>any official body needs for why they are looking after each other's
>children like this

I disagree. There should be no question of any explanation being offered 
to any official body.

-- 
Les
Conspiracy theory: A suspicion that officials sometimes mislead the public in
order to protect their own interests.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:20:58 +0100, Big Les Wade 
wrote:

>Alex Heney  posted
>>On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
>> wrote:
>>>Mothers are banned from looking after each other's children
>>
>>For once I agree with you completely.
>>
>>The same article was in the Times today, and I could hardly believe
>>the idiocy as I read it.
>><http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/articl
>>e6850342.ece>
>>
>
>Looks like there's a comment there from our very own MM too :)

Oh, I spend far too much time in many forums!

MM

"MM"  wrote in message 
news:ps5ub5h8jh5tdpi6b5ien3829a0bpurkbh@4ax.com...
> It should have been stopped in 2002 when the media had weeks and weeks
> of coverage over the Soham murders. It has been allowed free rein
> since then. There's an awful lot of rowing back to be done after at
> least SEVEN years of hysteria.
>
I'm a lot more anti-peado than most of this group but even I can see it has 
all gone too far.

On the BBC News website, there is a telling paragraph reporting an
OFSTED official's comment in its report:

"Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts
or uncles, were exempt from the rules, he added. "

(see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8277378.stm )

I understood that a significant number of abusers were relatives of
the children, meaning that, if anything, this group should be the
last group to be made exempt if one is serious about applying this
rule in the utterly brain-dead and offensive way it is being applied
here. (Of course, I may be wrong in my understanding.)
-- 
Zhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK, and Zhangjiajie, Hunan, China.
Use Reply-To field, where this email address is guaranteed to be
valid for  2 weeks after the date of message it appears in.

On 27 Sep 2009 23:11:32 GMT, "Zhang Dawei" 
wrote:

>"Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts
>or uncles, were exempt from the rules, he added. "

That loophole must be closed immediatly.

Svenne

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Gary Baldi
 wrote:

>On Sep 26, 11:19 pm, djornsk  wrote:
>>
>> It would be good to believe that at some point a lot of small worms are
>> going turn.

>Don't hold your breath; so many of the sheeple are totally dependent
>on State handouts these days that they're hardly to rock the
>boat.......geese and golden eggs you see?

A lot of people would be daft not to vote Labour.

Hold on to your hats, the future could be a very rough ride.

Svenne

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:54:59 +0100, "Mr X" 
wrote:

>
>"MM"  wrote in message 
>news:ps5ub5h8jh5tdpi6b5ien3829a0bpurkbh@4ax.com...
>> It should have been stopped in 2002 when the media had weeks and weeks
>> of coverage over the Soham murders. It has been allowed free rein
>> since then. There's an awful lot of rowing back to be done after at
>> least SEVEN years of hysteria.
>>
>I'm a lot more anti-peado than most of this group but even I can see it has 
>all gone too far. 

As a matter of interest, what do you think of the Polanski arrest
yesterday?

MM

On 27 Sep 2009 23:11:32 GMT, "Zhang Dawei" 
wrote:

>On the BBC News website, there is a telling paragraph reporting an
>OFSTED official's comment in its report:
>
>"Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts
>or uncles, were exempt from the rules, he added. "
>
>(see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8277378.stm )
>
>I understood that a significant number of abusers were relatives of
>the children, meaning that, if anything, this group should be the
>last group to be made exempt if one is serious about applying this
>rule in the utterly brain-dead and offensive way it is being applied
>here. (Of course, I may be wrong in my understanding.)

No, you're dead right, and this highlights the ridiculous nature of
the whole vetting and barring nonsense. Exactly the people MOST likely
to be involved in child abuse are exempt. Go figure!

MM

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:49:04 GMT, Svenne  wrote:

>On 27 Sep 2009 23:11:32 GMT, "Zhang Dawei" 
>wrote:
>
>>"Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts
>>or uncles, were exempt from the rules, he added. "
>
>That loophole must be closed immediatly.

Oh, you mean: let the government write its own death warrant?

MM

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:50:55 GMT, Svenne  wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:00:53 -0700 (PDT), Gary Baldi
> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 26, 11:19 pm, djornsk  wrote:
>>>
>>> It would be good to believe that at some point a lot of small worms are
>>> going turn.
>
>>Don't hold your breath; so many of the sheeple are totally dependent
>>on State handouts these days that they're hardly to rock the
>>boat.......geese and golden eggs you see?
>
>A lot of people would be daft not to vote Labour.

You like daft people?

>Hold on to your hats, the future could be a very rough ride.

No, it won't be rough at all. It'll be very plain sailing up to and
beyond election day after which the Tories will be in charge and New
Labour will become a skidmark in the underpants of history.

MM

In message <J4RcloQiC6vKFwIg@obviously.invalid>, Big Les Wade 
 writes
>Martin Milan  posted
>>The two women are close friends - and that should be all the explanation
>>any official body needs for why they are looking after each other's
>>children like this
>
>I disagree. There should be no question of any explanation being 
>offered to any official body.
>
The women were told to cease immediately, or they would be prosecuted. 
However, the latest news is that the Children's Minister has ordered a 
review of the case. Could this be that, if the women opted for 
prosecution, it has been realised that the case would be rapidly 
dismissed, and a landmark precedent would be set?
-- 
Ian

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:03:04 +0100, MM  wrote:

>>A lot of people would be daft not to vote Labour.

>You like daft people?

They provide a good laugh.

>>Hold on to your hats, the future could be a very rough ride.

>No, it won't be rough at all. It'll be very plain sailing up to and
>beyond election day after which the Tories will be in charge and New
>Labour will become a skidmark in the underpants of history.

I'll be voting Labour. Since they got into power it makes the news and
views programs the best comedy TV since Monty Python.

I'll miss them if they go.

Svenne

In message , Ian Jackson 
 writes
>In message <J4RcloQiC6vKFwIg@obviously.invalid>, Big Les Wade 
> writes
>>Martin Milan  posted
>>>The two women are close friends - and that should be all the explanation
>>>any official body needs for why they are looking after each other's
>>>children like this
>>
>>I disagree. There should be no question of any explanation being 
>>offered to any official body.
>>
>The women were told to cease immediately, or they would be prosecuted. 
>However, the latest news is that the Children's Minister has ordered a 
>review of the case. Could this be that, if the women opted for 
>prosecution, it has been realised that the case would be rapidly 
>dismissed, and a landmark precedent would be set?

BBC R4 'Today' interview with one of the women, at 8.32am (28 Sept). 
Should be on Listen Again. Reveals a completely inflexible application 
by Ofsted, resulting in considerable disruption to the life of the 
woman, and distress to the child. Still, if it ..........
-- 
Ian

In message , Ian Jackson 
 writes
>In message , Ian Jackson 
> writes
>>In message <J4RcloQiC6vKFwIg@obviously.invalid>, Big Les Wade 
>> writes
>>>Martin Milan  posted
>>>>The two women are close friends - and that should be all the explanation
>>>>any official body needs for why they are looking after each other's
>>>>children like this
>>>
>>>I disagree. There should be no question of any explanation being 
>>>offered to any official body.
>>>
>>The women were told to cease immediately, or they would be prosecuted. 
>>However, the latest news is that the Children's Minister has ordered a 
>>review of the case. Could this be that, if the women opted for 
>>prosecution, it has been realised that the case would be rapidly 
>>dismissed, and a landmark precedent would be set?
>
>BBC R4 'Today' interview with one of the women, at 8.32am (28 Sept). 
>Should be on Listen Again. Reveals a completely inflexible application 
>by Ofsted, resulting in considerable disruption to the life of the 
>woman, and distress to the child. Still, if it ..........

And another follow-up....
In the Jeremy Vine programme (BBC R2, at around 11:30, I think), a lady 
who phoned-in said that if the friend was not CRB-checked and a 
registered as I child minder, even if they were themselves completely 
trusted, there could be a problem with anyone who happened to visited 
their house when the child was being looked after.

I'm beginning to despair. What hope is there left for Britain?
-- 
Ian

The funniest thing is the government rushing around trying to pretend
that the law wasn't meant to apply to cases like this. Bollocks. The
law was exactly *intended* to apply to cases like this. And this was
pointed out to people (including Daily Mail readers) as it was going
through parliament.

Like the "review" ordered into the ISA a couple of weeks ago, we'll
have a quiet spell (i.e. no embaressing outraged headlines) and then
they will be at it again.

IIRC from the ISA fiasco, *if* these two women register as
childminders, then anyone else living at the address *must* be ISA
vetted, or they will still be breaking the law.

We're not that far away from a clean ISA check to be suspicious in
itself ....

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:18:49 +0100, Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In message , Ian Jackson 
> writes
>>In message , Ian Jackson 
>> writes
>>>In message <J4RcloQiC6vKFwIg@obviously.invalid>, Big Les Wade 
>>> writes
>>>>Martin Milan  posted
>>>>>The two women are close friends - and that should be all the explanation
>>>>>any official body needs for why they are looking after each other's
>>>>>children like this
>>>>
>>>>I disagree. There should be no question of any explanation being 
>>>>offered to any official body.
>>>>
>>>The women were told to cease immediately, or they would be prosecuted. 
>>>However, the latest news is that the Children's Minister has ordered a 
>>>review of the case. Could this be that, if the women opted for 
>>>prosecution, it has been realised that the case would be rapidly 
>>>dismissed, and a landmark precedent would be set?
>>
>>BBC R4 'Today' interview with one of the women, at 8.32am (28 Sept). 
>>Should be on Listen Again. Reveals a completely inflexible application 
>>by Ofsted, resulting in considerable disruption to the life of the 
>>woman, and distress to the child. Still, if it ..........
>
>And another follow-up....
>In the Jeremy Vine programme (BBC R2, at around 11:30, I think), a lady 
>who phoned-in said that if the friend was not CRB-checked and a 
>registered as I child minder, even if they were themselves completely 
>trusted, there could be a problem with anyone who happened to visited 
>their house when the child was being looked after.
>
>I'm beginning to despair. What hope is there left for Britain?

There's is one way round this and would really put Ofsted on the spot
and lead it a merry dance. There is a time limit of 2 hours under
which no criminal check is required. Therefore, hand your child to the
next friend in your cascade before 2 hours is up and Ofsted can go and
take a running jump.

MM

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:52:02 -0700 (PDT), Jethro
 wrote:

>The funniest thing is the government rushing around trying to pretend
>that the law wasn't meant to apply to cases like this. Bollocks. The
>law was exactly *intended* to apply to cases like this. And this was
>pointed out to people (including Daily Mail readers) as it was going
>through parliament.
>
>Like the "review" ordered into the ISA a couple of weeks ago, we'll
>have a quiet spell (i.e. no embaressing outraged headlines) and then
>they will be at it again.
>
>IIRC from the ISA fiasco, *if* these two women register as
>childminders, then anyone else living at the address *must* be ISA
>vetted, or they will still be breaking the law.
>
>We're not that far away from a clean ISA check to be suspicious in
>itself ....

The way things are going, although I think the general election will
arrive just in time to stop all this nonsense, every single adult in
Britain will have to be ISA-checked.

MM

In message , MM 
 writes
>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:52:02 -0700 (PDT), Jethro
> wrote:
>
>>The funniest thing is the government rushing around trying to pretend
>>that the law wasn't meant to apply to cases like this. Bollocks. The
>>law was exactly *intended* to apply to cases like this. And this was
>>pointed out to people (including Daily Mail readers) as it was going
>>through parliament.
>>
>>Like the "review" ordered into the ISA a couple of weeks ago, we'll
>>have a quiet spell (i.e. no embaressing outraged headlines) and then
>>they will be at it again.
>>
>>IIRC from the ISA fiasco, *if* these two women register as
>>childminders, then anyone else living at the address *must* be ISA
>>vetted, or they will still be breaking the law.
>>
>>We're not that far away from a clean ISA check to be suspicious in
>>itself ....
>
>The way things are going, although I think the general election will
>arrive just in time to stop all this nonsense, every single adult in
>Britain will have to be ISA-checked.
>
I heard today that they are planning to make it compulsory for all dogs 
to be 'chipped' with RFID implants. This will undoubtedly require the 
appropriate paperwork so, in effect, dog licences are being 
re-introduced. [I remember when they stopped. At the time they were 7/6 
pa.]

I would equate the extension of the need to register as a child minder 
as the equivalent of requiring a child licence, the only difference 
being that you won't need one for looking after your own child (well, 
not yet), but you WILL need one to look after  - and even to come in 
contact with - any other child.

As you say, you might as well make it compulsory for single adult to 
have a CRB and ISA. Anyone who is not 'cleared' will be obliged to keep 
well away from children.
-- 
Ian

"Steve Walker"  wrote in message 
news:7i7f42F9igdeU1@mid.individual.net...
> Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Special Care
>>  wrote:
>
>> The same article was in the Times today, and I could hardly believe
>> the idiocy as I read it.
>> <http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6850342.ece>
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> A circular with the petition says: 'Caring for a child for reward is
>>> classed as childminding and requires the carer to be registered with
>>> Ofsted. In this case, Ofsted say that the reward is free childcare
>>> when the mothers themselves go to work!'
>>>
>>
>> This is the crux of the matter, and is utterly ridiculous, of course.
>
> I agree - this might be the moment when the rising tide of paedophobia has 
> to be stopped

Actually, this rule has nothing to do with paedophilia and everything to do 
with the occasional child being (accidentally) killed by an unlicensed 
childminder (I'm sure that you can look them up).

Yes, I agree that this interpretation is stupid

tim

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:37:47 +0100, Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In message , MM 
> writes
>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:52:02 -0700 (PDT), Jethro
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The funniest thing is the government rushing around trying to pretend
>>>that the law wasn't meant to apply to cases like this. Bollocks. The
>>>law was exactly *intended* to apply to cases like this. And this was
>>>pointed out to people (including Daily Mail readers) as it was going
>>>through parliament.
>>>
>>>Like the "review" ordered into the ISA a couple of weeks ago, we'll
>>>have a quiet spell (i.e. no embaressing outraged headlines) and then
>>>they will be at it again.
>>>
>>>IIRC from the ISA fiasco, *if* these two women register as
>>>childminders, then anyone else living at the address *must* be ISA
>>>vetted, or they will still be breaking the law.
>>>
>>>We're not that far away from a clean ISA check to be suspicious in
>>>itself ....
>>
>>The way things are going, although I think the general election will
>>arrive just in time to stop all this nonsense, every single adult in
>>Britain will have to be ISA-checked.
>>
>I heard today that they are planning to make it compulsory for all dogs 
>to be 'chipped' with RFID implants. This will undoubtedly require the 
>appropriate paperwork so, in effect, dog licences are being 
>re-introduced. [I remember when they stopped. At the time they were 7/6 
>pa.]
>
>I would equate the extension of the need to register as a child minder 
>as the equivalent of requiring a child licence, the only difference 
>being that you won't need one for looking after your own child (well, 
>not yet), but you WILL need one to look after  - and even to come in 
>contact with - any other child.
>
>As you say, you might as well make it compulsory for single adult to 
>have a CRB and ISA. Anyone who is not 'cleared' will be obliged to keep 
>well away from children.

And maybe live in designated areas. For instance, several counties
could be "preferred counties" for single men and no children. Over 40
years, the trend would separate the two groups through natural
selection/aging, and men would only be allowed to leave "their" county
by presenting a special ISA time-limited passport.

MM

Big Les Wade  wrote in
news:J4RcloQiC6vKFwIg@obviously.invalid: 

> Martin Milan  posted
>>The two women are close friends - and that should be all the
>>explanation any official body needs for why they are looking after
>>each other's children like this
> 
> I disagree. There should be no question of any explanation being
> offered to any official body.
> 

No - "You seem to be a professional childminder, and you're not
registered... Oh - I'm sorry - you're just a friend? Oh - you work
together... Well, sorry about the intrusion then - have a nice day" is
how I would like it to proceed, but let's be realistic here... 

Martin

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:58:53 +0100, MM  wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:54:59 +0100, "Mr X" 
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"MM"  wrote in message 
>>news:ps5ub5h8jh5tdpi6b5ien3829a0bpurkbh@4ax.com...
>>> It should have been stopped in 2002 when the media had weeks and weeks
>>> of coverage over the Soham murders. It has been allowed free rein
>>> since then. There's an awful lot of rowing back to be done after at
>>> least SEVEN years of hysteria.
>>>
>>I'm a lot more anti-peado than most of this group but even I can see it has 
>>all gone too far. 
>
>As a matter of interest, what do you think of the Polanski arrest
>yesterday?
>

Whatever he may think, I'm rather surprised it has taken this long for
him to find himself in a country with "appropriate" extradition
agreements with the USA.

The Swiss authorities really have no choice in the matter, once the US
authorities have presented the request with sufficient supporting
evidence.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Women do come with instructions; ask them.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:16:06 +0100, Alex Heney 
wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:58:53 +0100, MM  wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:54:59 +0100, "Mr X" 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"MM"  wrote in message 
>>>news:ps5ub5h8jh5tdpi6b5ien3829a0bpurkbh@4ax.com...
>>>> It should have been stopped in 2002 when the media had weeks and weeks
>>>> of coverage over the Soham murders. It has been allowed free rein
>>>> since then. There's an awful lot of rowing back to be done after at
>>>> least SEVEN years of hysteria.
>>>>
>>>I'm a lot more anti-peado than most of this group but even I can see it has 
>>>all gone too far. 
>>
>>As a matter of interest, what do you think of the Polanski arrest
>>yesterday?
>>
>
>Whatever he may think, I'm rather surprised it has taken this long for
>him to find himself in a country with "appropriate" extradition
>agreements with the USA.
>
>The Swiss authorities really have no choice in the matter, once the US
>authorities have presented the request with sufficient supporting
>evidence.

And yet Polanski has visited Switzerland many times and even has a
holiday home there which he has also visited.

Here's the Los Angeles Times, Monday:

"Did the L.A. County district attorney's office go after Roman
Polanski because they wanted revenge after getting a black eye in the
recent Polanski documentary, 'Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired?' 

"That's the provocative theory floated by Newser's always provocative
Michael Wolff, best known as the author of 'The Man Who Owns the
News,' the wonderfully dishy recent biography of Rupert Murdoch.
According to Wolff, it seems awfully strange that Polanski has been
traveling to Switzerland for years -- he even has a home there --
without L.A. prosecutors managing to nab him until now. 

"So why did the D.A.'s office suddenly kick itself into gear? Here's
the gist of Wolff's theory: 

"Arresting Polanski is about the L.A. prosecutor's office's public
relations. Prosecutors ignored Polanski for 30 years because it was a
terrible case in which the prosecutor's office and the sitting judge,
in the interest of getting publicity for themselves, had conducted
themselves in all variety of dubious ways. But then, last year, 'Roman
Polanski: Wanted and Desired' came out detailing all this dubiousness.
So the first motivation for going after Polanski now, as it so often
is with prosecutors, is revenge -- Polanski and this film makes the
D.A. look bad.

"Wolff adds that the documentary must have also served as a reminder,
with Polanski traveling freely around Europe, that the D.A.'s office
had turned a blind eye to his case. Now that the D.A.'s office has
nabbed its fugitive, it no longer looks distracted or impotent. As
Wolff puts it: 'The headlines now sweeping the world are the
prosecutor's ultimate benefit. Many careers are suddenly advanced.'

"There are a few holes in Wolff's theory, especially since I'm not so
sure that the current inhabitants of the D.A.'s office are really so
invested in defending the actions of their long-ago predecessors,
especially since the documentary's most damning revelations involved
the sitting judge, not the prosecutors. But with so many far more
important cases sitting idle because of budget cuts and lack of
manpower, it is hard to fathom why the D.A.'s office is suddenly
spending time and money trying to re-energize an ancient sex case when
there are so many more nasty characters so much closer to home who
need to feel the strong arm of the law."

MM

"MM"  wrote in message 
news:opf2c513o9d1qna8aqta8uc46g0cguuv9r@4ax.com...
> "There are a few holes in Wolff's theory, especially since I'm not so
> sure that the current inhabitants of the D.A.'s office are really so
> invested in defending the actions of their long-ago predecessors,
> especially since the documentary's most damning revelations involved
> the sitting judge, not the prosecutors. But with so many far more
> important cases sitting idle because of budget cuts and lack of
> manpower, it is hard to fathom why the D.A.'s office is suddenly
> spending time and money trying to re-energize an ancient sex case when
> there are so many more nasty characters so much closer to home who
> need to feel the strong arm of the law."
>
My view is that they should let sleeping dogs lie.
All of this happened a long time ago.  What he did was wrong, yes, but there 
seems little to be gained for either society or the victim by raking it all 
up now.  She had probably got her own life and would rather forget Polanski 
(I think she had said as much).  There also seems little point in jailing an 
OAP who presents little, if any, threat to children.

In message , MM 
 writes
>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:37:47 +0100, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>
>>In message , MM
>> writes
>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:52:02 -0700 (PDT), Jethro
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The funniest thing is the government rushing around trying to pretend
>>>>that the law wasn't meant to apply to cases like this. Bollocks. The
>>>>law was exactly *intended* to apply to cases like this. And this was
>>>>pointed out to people (including Daily Mail readers) as it was going
>>>>through parliament.
>>>>
>>>>Like the "review" ordered into the ISA a couple of weeks ago, we'll
>>>>have a quiet spell (i.e. no embaressing outraged headlines) and then
>>>>they will be at it again.
>>>>
>>>>IIRC from the ISA fiasco, *if* these two women register as
>>>>childminders, then anyone else living at the address *must* be ISA
>>>>vetted, or they will still be breaking the law.
>>>>
>>>>We're not that far away from a clean ISA check to be suspicious in
>>>>itself ....
>>>
>>>The way things are going, although I think the general election will
>>>arrive just in time to stop all this nonsense, every single adult in
>>>Britain will have to be ISA-checked.
>>>
>>I heard today that they are planning to make it compulsory for all dogs
>>to be 'chipped' with RFID implants. This will undoubtedly require the
>>appropriate paperwork so, in effect, dog licences are being
>>re-introduced. [I remember when they stopped. At the time they were 7/6
>>pa.]
>>
>>I would equate the extension of the need to register as a child minder
>>as the equivalent of requiring a child licence, the only difference
>>being that you won't need one for looking after your own child (well,
>>not yet), but you WILL need one to look after  - and even to come in
>>contact with - any other child.
>>
>>As you say, you might as well make it compulsory for single adult to
>>have a CRB and ISA. Anyone who is not 'cleared' will be obliged to keep
>>well away from children.
>
>And maybe live in designated areas. For instance, several counties
>could be "preferred counties" for single men and no children. Over 40
>years, the trend would separate the two groups through natural
>selection/aging, and men would only be allowed to leave "their" county
>by presenting a special ISA time-limited passport.
>
Don't be silly. This could never happen in Britain.

Mind you, if they had told me a couple of years ago that you would have 
to be officially registered by the state to look after your friends' and 
neighbours' children, that you would need a full valid passport for 
internal air flights, and that you would get pounced upon by the police, 
PCSOs, security guards and park keepers for taking photographs, I would 
also have said that this could never happen in Britain.
-- 
Ian

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:30:27 +0100, Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In message , MM 
> writes
>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:37:47 +0100, Ian Jackson
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In message , MM
>>> writes
>>>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:52:02 -0700 (PDT), Jethro
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The funniest thing is the government rushing around trying to pretend
>>>>>that the law wasn't meant to apply to cases like this. Bollocks. The
>>>>>law was exactly *intended* to apply to cases like this. And this was
>>>>>pointed out to people (including Daily Mail readers) as it was going
>>>>>through parliament.
>>>>>
>>>>>Like the "review" ordered into the ISA a couple of weeks ago, we'll
>>>>>have a quiet spell (i.e. no embaressing outraged headlines) and then
>>>>>they will be at it again.
>>>>>
>>>>>IIRC from the ISA fiasco, *if* these two women register as
>>>>>childminders, then anyone else living at the address *must* be ISA
>>>>>vetted, or they will still be breaking the law.
>>>>>
>>>>>We're not that far away from a clean ISA check to be suspicious in
>>>>>itself ....
>>>>
>>>>The way things are going, although I think the general election will
>>>>arrive just in time to stop all this nonsense, every single adult in
>>>>Britain will have to be ISA-checked.
>>>>
>>>I heard today that they are planning to make it compulsory for all dogs
>>>to be 'chipped' with RFID implants. This will undoubtedly require the
>>>appropriate paperwork so, in effect, dog licences are being
>>>re-introduced. [I remember when they stopped. At the time they were 7/6
>>>pa.]
>>>
>>>I would equate the extension of the need to register as a child minder
>>>as the equivalent of requiring a child licence, the only difference
>>>being that you won't need one for looking after your own child (well,
>>>not yet), but you WILL need one to look after  - and even to come in
>>>contact with - any other child.
>>>
>>>As you say, you might as well make it compulsory for single adult to
>>>have a CRB and ISA. Anyone who is not 'cleared' will be obliged to keep
>>>well away from children.
>>
>>And maybe live in designated areas. For instance, several counties
>>could be "preferred counties" for single men and no children. Over 40
>>years, the trend would separate the two groups through natural
>>selection/aging, and men would only be allowed to leave "their" county
>>by presenting a special ISA time-limited passport.
>>
>Don't be silly. This could never happen in Britain.
>
>Mind you, if they had told me a couple of years ago that you would have 
>to be officially registered by the state to look after your friends' and 
>neighbours' children, that you would need a full valid passport for 
>internal air flights, and that you would get pounced upon by the police, 
>PCSOs, security guards and park keepers for taking photographs, I would 
>also have said that this could never happen in Britain.

It seems, however, that just like in Germany in the 1930s there are
plenty of people in Britain keen to support New Labour's fascist-lite
tendencies. 

MM

On 29/09/2009, 08:30:27, in uk.legal
(<$$Tk+sDTebwKFwm6@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>), Ian Jackson wrote:
> Don't be silly. This could never happen in Britain.
> 
> Mind you, if they had told me a couple of years ago that you would
> have to be officially registered by the state to look after your
> friends' and neighbours' children, that you would need a full valid
> passport for internal air flights, and that you would get pounced
> upon by the police, PCSOs, security guards and park keepers for
> taking photographs, I would also have said that this could never
> happen in Britain.

I've heard that that step-parents are supposed to be registered if
this legislation is to be believed. This is something that impacts on
me, being a step parent according to the UK, and a full parent (of
the same child) according to China. It seems that if I look after him
for more than 2 hours at a time outside the home, etc etc, then I
should be CRB checked.

This, if true, is just another hassle that has come about: in the
past, I have had to argue with hospital staff that I could give
consent for my child to be treated after an accident, explaining that
if not, I could go and fetch my wife who would simply ask them to
deal with me, once she got there, because her English is not yet good
enough for her to feel confident enough with them, and that this
would take up time during my son would continue to suffer.
-- 
Zhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK, and Zhangjiajie, Hunan, China.
Use Reply-To field, where this email address is guaranteed to be
valid for  2 weeks after the date of message it appears in.

"Zhang Dawei"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> I've heard that that step-parents are supposed to be registered if this
> legislation is to be believed. This is something that impacts on me,
> being a step parent according to the UK, and a full parent (of the same
> child) according to China. It seems that if I look after him for more
> than 2 hours at a time outside the home, etc etc, then I should be CRB
> checked.
> 
> This, if true, is just another hassle that has come about: in the past,
> I have had to argue with hospital staff that I could give consent for my
> child to be treated after an accident, explaining that if not, I could
> go and fetch my wife who would simply ask them to deal with me, once she
> got there, because her English is not yet good enough for her to feel
> confident enough with them, and that this would take up time during my
> son would continue to suffer.

Have you considered legally adopting your (step)child?

On 29/09/2009, 14:21:27, in uk.legal
(), Adrian wrote:

> "Zhang Dawei"  gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
> 
> > I've heard that that step-parents are supposed to be registered
> > if this legislation is to be believed. This is something that
> > impacts on me, being a step parent according to the UK, and a
> > full parent (of the same child) according to China. It seems that
> > if I look after him for more than 2 hours at a time outside the
> > home, etc etc, then I should be CRB checked.
> > 
> > This, if true, is just another hassle that has come about: in the
> > past, I have had to argue with hospital staff that I could give
> > consent for my child to be treated after an accident, explaining
> > that if not, I could go and fetch my wife who would simply ask
> > them to deal with me, once she got there, because her English is
> > not yet good enough for her to feel confident enough with them,
> > and that this would take up time during my son would continue to
> > suffer.
> 
> Have you considered legally adopting your (step)child?

As far as I am aware, from my own reading, we would have to pay for
social workers to go out and interview the natural father. That is
problematic for a number of reasons, as the original divorce
settlement severed all contact between him and my stepson. That
didn't stop us having to get a letter from him for the original visa
that allowed my stepson to accompany me and my wife to the UK. The
amount of difficulty we had in getting this leads me to believe that
he would be uncooperative. However, I admit I haven't taken any real
legal advice about this (mainly because we probably couldn't afford
it.)

-- 
Zhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK, and Zhangjiajie, Hunan, China.
Use Reply-To field, where this email address is guaranteed to be
valid for  2 weeks after the date of message it appears in.

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:04:52 +0100, MM  wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:16:06 +0100, Alex Heney 
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:58:53 +0100, MM  wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:54:59 +0100, "Mr X" 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"MM"  wrote in message 
>>>>news:ps5ub5h8jh5tdpi6b5ien3829a0bpurkbh@4ax.com...
>>>>> It should have been stopped in 2002 when the media had weeks and weeks
>>>>> of coverage over the Soham murders. It has been allowed free rein
>>>>> since then. There's an awful lot of rowing back to be done after at
>>>>> least SEVEN years of hysteria.
>>>>>
>>>>I'm a lot more anti-peado than most of this group but even I can see it has 
>>>>all gone too far. 
>>>
>>>As a matter of interest, what do you think of the Polanski arrest
>>>yesterday?
>>>
>>
>>Whatever he may think, I'm rather surprised it has taken this long for
>>him to find himself in a country with "appropriate" extradition
>>agreements with the USA.
>>
>>The Swiss authorities really have no choice in the matter, once the US
>>authorities have presented the request with sufficient supporting
>>evidence.
>
>And yet Polanski has visited Switzerland many times and even has a
>holiday home there which he has also visited.
>

As I understand it, the extradition treaty between the USA and
Switzerland only came into force in 2005.

Which still left them 4 years, if they could be bothered, but means
that most of his previous visits would have been before that, or since
then were probably short enough (or not enough advance notice) to not
give the US authorities time to prepare the request.


>Here's the Los Angeles Times, Monday:
>
>"Did the L.A. County district attorney's office go after Roman
>Polanski because they wanted revenge after getting a black eye in the
>recent Polanski documentary, 'Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired?' 

That of course is also possible.

As is the fact that they have recently had a new president who wants
to be seen to be active.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Civil wars aren't.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:51:25 +0100, "Mr X" 
wrote:

>
>"MM"  wrote in message 
>news:opf2c513o9d1qna8aqta8uc46g0cguuv9r@4ax.com...
>> "There are a few holes in Wolff's theory, especially since I'm not so
>> sure that the current inhabitants of the D.A.'s office are really so
>> invested in defending the actions of their long-ago predecessors,
>> especially since the documentary's most damning revelations involved
>> the sitting judge, not the prosecutors. But with so many far more
>> important cases sitting idle because of budget cuts and lack of
>> manpower, it is hard to fathom why the D.A.'s office is suddenly
>> spending time and money trying to re-energize an ancient sex case when
>> there are so many more nasty characters so much closer to home who
>> need to feel the strong arm of the law."
>>
>My view is that they should let sleeping dogs lie.
>All of this happened a long time ago.  What he did was wrong, yes, but there 
>seems little to be gained for either society or the victim by raking it all 
>up now.  She had probably got her own life and would rather forget Polanski 
>(I think she had said as much).  There also seems little point in jailing an 
>OAP who presents little, if any, threat to children.
>

She would prefer to forget it.

But that doesn't excuse what he did, and she will only be affected by
the publicity, she won't have to give testimony or anything, since he
pleaded guilty (then escaped the country before being sentenced).

The fact is that he committed a pretty heinous crime - Anal rape of a
13 year old child, which he admitted to.

And he has not been punished for it (apart from not being able to
visit many countries since then).
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Computer Lie #1: You'll never use all that disk space.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Zhang Dawei  posted
>On 29/09/2009, 08:30:27, in uk.legal
>(<$$Tk+sDTebwKFwm6@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>), Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Don't be silly. This could never happen in Britain.
>>
>> Mind you, if they had told me a couple of years ago that you would
>> have to be officially registered by the state to look after your
>> friends' and neighbours' children, that you would need a full valid
>> passport for internal air flights, and that you would get pounced
>> upon by the police, PCSOs, security guards and park keepers for
>> taking photographs, I would also have said that this could never
>> happen in Britain.
>
>I've heard that that step-parents are supposed to be registered if
>this legislation is to be believed.

Not to my knowledge (having read the Act). It seems highly unlikely that 
something so grossly oppressive would have got through even this 
cowering, timorous parliament.

Foster-parents, yes.

-- 
Les
Conspiracy theory: A suspicion that officials sometimes mislead the public in
order to protect their own interests.

On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:38:12 +0100, "tim....."
 wrote:

>Actually, this rule has nothing to do with paedophilia and everything to do 
>with the occasional child being (accidentally) killed by an unlicensed 
>childminder (I'm sure that you can look them up).

And how does becoming a licenced childminder reduce that risk?

-- 
Cynic

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:017hc5psf9p6pi79mrk4in5tbkbbpvjq1a@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:38:12 +0100, "tim....."
>  wrote:
>
>>Actually, this rule has nothing to do with paedophilia and everything to 
>>do
>>with the occasional child being (accidentally) killed by an unlicensed
>>childminder (I'm sure that you can look them up).
>
> And how does becoming a licenced childminder reduce that risk?
>
> -- 
> Cynic
>
You can gain access to more children because you are trusted, therefore you 
have the opportunity to kill or abuse more more (more red tape bollocks)