DK

As a CP officer of a charity (voluntary position) not only do we do that but we follow up references for the last 5 years.

And we have employed people with records – its dependendent on the details.

Unfortunately this doe not stop abuse. Firstly because most abuse is done by family members or friends. Secondly because people don’t get caught, victims don’t come forward – no record does not mean no history of abuse or questionable behaviour. Thirdly because CRB’s are inefficient.

I don’t think it’s the CP lot that are objecting to people taking photo’s though. Whether they be of kids or otherwise. It’s everyday people who are being whipped up into hysteria by the media who at best are ignorant and responsible and at worst are misleading to sell papers.

I have no ref but I’m pretty sure that the no of kids abducted and killed by a stranger in the uk has generally hovered between 5 and 10 for about fifty years now.

Oh let us laugh at the simple minded fools who fell for the homo hysteria of the 50s. We’re not like that. Our dangers are real and we need more policemen patrolling the streets telling us what to do.

All that said i just don’t understand the rationality of anyone trusting the police. For the sake of argument lets imagine these vast paedophile gangs working in schools or finding single mothers exist; why on earth would they put themselves in such obvious danger? If i were part of the paedophile conspiracy i’d be joining the police force pretty damn quickly – and from that id work in child protection. If the ‘paedophile threat’ is even fractionally as bad as its made out the safest place for paedophiles to work would be where they’re the only ones legally allowed to look at all the child porn they want.

Think about that the next time PC plod looks through your camera.

I self-conscious of overusing “Pavlovian”. It’s becoming an El Cid cliche.
For more click here:
http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/medicine/pavlov/

Clearly El Cid, you are a very articulate and intelligent person but are you human?

I don’t recall trying to bar them.
I’m just suggesting that it’s pavlovian, childish and pathetic to do so. Is that ok?

I couldn’t agree more with your sentiments. 1984 came 20 years late but nobody cares. That’s why I say fuck the Oyster card and send it and all of their acolytes back to the hell from whence they came. That’s why I still don’t have one.

That aside, I’ll say this. Katy had every right in bringing to our attention the gentle, silent and insidious erosion of our civil liberties while equally Leon had every right to reminding our community that for a number of it’s members (ie: black members) this has been for a very long time a day to
day reality of living in the UK. For me BOTH points were perfectly valid, for Katy it wasn’t.

On second thoughts I was a bit rough on white liberals because in truth they are not the only ones who can be deaf to reason. The Black community in the UK are shamefully deaf to the evils going on amongst their own, as well as evils going on abroad (ie: Iraq). In both instances the response is always the same. If it doesn’t directly affect me, it’s none of my business. What black people can’t seem to understand is that by the time it’s does affect them, it’s too late to do anything about it. That’s how black people sleepwalked themselves into the Iraq war. So Katy please accept my apologies because there is one thing that is more dangerous to the black community than Liberal Wet White People. They are what I call ignorant niggers. Both types. The ones who can’t read and the one’s who can.

Thanks. I thought it was just me.

Love you girl, as we say nowadays.

Or, thanks for your support, as we used to say.

You choose, they are both compliments. I think.

You are quite right, as usual!

I am worried, bloody worried.

When we get to worrying about photographers like The Dude or The Ill Man something is very, very wrong. And we worry about this in the context of an almost total surveillance society. What’s the figure again? Most CCTV in the world is in the UK or something like that? If the State does it it’s OK, if someone takes a snap we get the ‘I’m a child protection officer’ morons out in force. Look behind you, there is probably a CCTV within a few hundred metres of where you are right now. But that’s OK? I don’t think so.

We may be going a little bit mad. Maybe.

if i were a man i’d be very worried!!

“Either civil rights abuses are wrong or they’re not. It doesn’t matter what the colour of the person on the receiving end is. Or at least it’s never mattered to me.”

Yep spot on.

and i don’t think this has been going on for ages – this thing with cameras is new, its getting paranoid about media usage.

Ill Man, clarify something for me please.

Are we dismissing that there is an attack on our civil liberties? Or are we dismissing that white people don’t have to go through it as bad as ethnic minorities?

I may not agree with is insitutionalised police racism, but it is undeniable black people are stopped and search way more than whites. Are the examples similar. Why do you think they’re not?

People will bring their own experiences into any debate whether others like it or not. One may disagree with them or not, that is up to them.

Katy has made a series of accusations above that I won’t leave unchallenged.

Leon and Sunny, you both made it perfectly clear that you weren’t interested, you thought it was a fuss about nothing and you thought it was nice to see white people on the receiving end for a change.

No we don’t think it was nice white people were on the receiving end for once. It was more cynicism at the fact this has been going for ages with other communities, especially ethnic minorities. That is a statement of fact, not some attempt to wear a victim badge and say: ‘lets laugh at these white people who are going through what we have’.

Secondly, she said: I don’t particularly appreciate being sneered at as if I’m some dimwitted white airhead who doesn’t understand about racism.

1) No one sneered at this incident. That is something the likes of Muzumdar used to do.

2) No one said or implied Katy was “dimwitted”.

3) There was no need to put in the “white”, with the implication that because she is white, I thought she doesn’t understand or say anything useful about civil
liberties or that she isn’t right-on about racism enough.

We may have a difference of opinion on whether this article demonstrates a “oh my god, look’s whats going on!!!!” moment.

But to then take that a level further by saying I’m being sexist (and yes, I see it as a sexist comment) or that I encourage of discourahge Katy from writing about certain issues is also rubbish, is not something I will let lie.