Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (5)

"Another new law - on Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups - is also going to cause enormous harm, because it bars people from working on the basis of their private and perfectly legal sexual fantasies."

Can someone explain more about this, or point me to more information. Which law is this and which provisions are the problem?

Thanks.

http://www.caan.org.uk/statement.html

Moses was angry with the officers of the army..."Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them..."Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:15-17)

But yes, it might be good for to include a reference to this bit?

Section 63 criminalises "extreme" images of consenting adults - see http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... .

Moses was angry with the officers of the army..."Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them..."Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:15-17)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/17/gossip_w... Which covers the case of John Pinnington... the soft evidence/false allegations he lost his job over were child abuse related but hold the same legal status as the clause quoted already in this thread regarding violent sexual images.

Note especially the quote from the General Secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers:

"We believe this is a retrograde action that will simply put more teachers and other members of the children's workforce in danger of malicious and false allegation at risk. We recognize absolutely the need for our schools to be safe places, but this action overturns natural justice as it appears that colleagues working in schools run the risk of being guilty by accusation. This makes professional and dedicated staff vulnerable to the ruination of careers and even lives for no substantiated reason. "

This is something that is critical for any member of ic who is also in a position covered by an enhanced crb check or whose job will be covered by the new vetting bill....

This is probably a clause which many teaching/nursing etc unions won't yet have picked up on.... if their professions are anything like the rest of the population they will contain a fair percentage of people who may well hold images which will criminalise them come January (if not already as the vulnerable groups act went live in 2006)

This girl would have thought such unions have a duty to be informing their membership of the dangers of owning such images (not that any of us can say exactly what sort of images will be covered)and also advising as to how to delete them effectively.

In many ways the vetting bill is a far greater threat than the extreme porn law potentially it can barr almost half the working population from work and it can do so on the simple test of whether an individual possesses sexual material that is violent in nature. This is a far lower test than the extreme porn test and could apply to almost anything... no exemptions for bbfc material or filming your partner for example. Whilst the extreme porn stuff was preceded by consultation, nearly two years of debate and significant debate in parliament the relevent bit of the vetting bill was introduced as an ammendment with about a weeks notice and merited approx two sentences of parliamentary debate.

As for effect there is already some evidence of employers asking would be employees if they possess material of the sort mentioned in the vetting bill (we've already seen this said elsewhere on ic threads).

This places individuals in an impossible situation. lie. or tell the truth and not get the job. Lying of course means you can be sacked at any future date and also provides the sort of public interest grounds that newspapers lay claim to when exposing the activities of 'us perverts'.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/objectification_in...
To be without some of the things you want is an indispensable part of happiness. – Bertrand Russel.

people just tend to disagree with them when they ask stuff....and the pr doesn't look so good when they keep on ignoring the disagreements... so best not ask in the first place.

so...hmmm.....you could have a point

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/objectification_in...
To be without some of the things you want is an indispensable part of happiness. – Bertrand Russel.

We at work are of the opinion that this new legislation could easily be challenged under the EUHRA as it seems that you are now guilty with any recourse to prove innocence. Personally I am hoping one of the teaching unions pick up on this and actually challenge the legality of the leiglsation, first in our courts, then in the ECHR.