forum.sports-pro.co.uk A discussion forum devoted to people who want to talk about sports and sports betting! People without a sense of humour need not apply!!
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:03 am Post subject: Stuck on a question
The question being
'CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME, WHAT CRIME WAS COMMITTED, WHAT PURPOSE DOES THIS ACTUALLY SERVE AND WHAT TYPE OF PERSON WOULD REPORT THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE TO OFSTED'
England's Children's Minister wants a review of the case of two police officers told they were breaking the law, caring for each other's children.
Ofsted said the arrangement contravened the Childcare Act because it lasted for longer than two hours a day, and constituted receiving "a reward".
It said the women would have to be registered as childminders.
The two detective constables, Leanne Shepherd, from Milton Keynes, and Lucy Jarrett, from Buckingham, told the BBC how Ofsted insisted they end their arrangement.Ms Shepherd, who serves with Thames Valley Police, recalled: "A lady came to the front door and she identified herself as being from Ofsted. She said a complaint had been made that I was illegally childminding.
"I was just shocked - I thought they were a bit confused about the arrangement between us.
"So I invited her in and told her situation - the arrangement between Lucy and I - and I was shocked when she told me I was breaking the law."
Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward
Ms Jarrett added: "Our children were never in any harm, they were never in any danger.
"To think that they would waste their time and effort on innocent people who are trying to provide for their families by returning to the workplace... Surely their time and effort would be better placed elsewhere."
Thames Valley Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said the pair had its "full support".
Secretary Andy Viney said: "Both of them are experienced professional officers.
"They just want to return to work after having children and have found that the system is working totally against them.
"They've been threatened with prosecution by Ofsted if they continue doing this."
An Ofsted spokesman said it applied regulations found in the Childcare Act 2006, but was currently discussing the interpretation of the word "reward" with the department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF).
"Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward.
"Generally, mothers who look after each other's children are not providing childminding for which registration is required, as exemptions apply to them, for example because the care is for less than two hours or it takes place on less than 14 days in a year.
"Where such arrangements are regular and for longer periods, then registration is usually required."
Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts or uncles, were exempt from the rules, he added.
Ofsted only operates in England, so this interpretation of the law on child care for "reward" applies to England rather than elsewhere in the UK.
Michelle Elliott, director of the children's charity Kidscape, told the BBC's Breakfast programme that the decision defied common sense and would impose extra childcare costs on families.
She added: "These children were looked after in a secure environment with people that they knew.
"There must be thousands of people out there who are doing the same thing who are now going to think: 'Do I have to spend £300 a week or whatever it is?'"
A petition to scrap the rules governing reciprocal child care on the Number 10 website had gathered more than 5,300 signatures by 0530 BST on Monday.
Anyone required to register to become a childminder would also have to undergo a criminal records check.
Absolutely crackers and just shows what money is wasted on sometimes in the Public Service
MT jnr _________________ THERE ARE 2 RULES TO SUCCESS. RULE 1)DONT TELL EVERYONE WHAT YOU KNOW
So if your child has their friend round your house to play then you are effectively taking care of said child. What happens in this example?
Bloody ridiculous! _________________ First Competition Winner 2009
Lincoln Competition Winner 2009
Goodwood Competition Winner 2009
If yu just looka fter someone's child without any reward then you do not have to be registered. however these two ladies agreed to job share, and look after the other's chld when they were not working. The "reward" was free childcare so the regulations applied
there are exceptions for casual / irregular care as is said in the thread. Less than 2 hours at a time or less than 14 days a year.
The two ladies concerned will have no problem pasing the registration process including CRB checking (they are, after all policewomen), the officious way OfSTED have dealt with the problem (requiring them to immediately desist rather than allowing the status quo ante to prevail untl the registration process was complete is rather shoddy, and as you say who on earth raised the complaint.
The "offence" is acting as an unregistered chil d minder, but as far as I know from my readng of the case in the newspapers there is no intention to take any action against either of them.
The likely outcome is an early amendment to the law to permit reciprocal arrangements for care between mothers/parents as being exempt from "reward"but then that may have to be limited to 2 children to stop people getting into what would i truth be a commercial arrangement without proper checking.
remember that this sensible regulation (albeit that it has thrown up an anomoly which seems to be silly in this case) exists to protect children and to ensure that those who carry out childminding for some reward on a regular basis are registered and checked for child protection purposes. _________________ Geordie_R
"A should of known there mum was buying banana's"
If yu just looka fter someone's child without any reward then you do not have to be registered. however these two ladies agreed to job share, and look after the other's chld when they were not working. The "reward" was free childcare so the regulations applied
there are exceptions for casual / irregular care as is said in the thread. Less than 2 hours at a time or less than 14 days a year.
The two ladies concerned will have no problem pasing the registration process including CRB checking (they are, after all policewomen), the officious way OfSTED have dealt with the problem (requiring them to immediately desist rather than allowing the status quo ante to prevail untl the registration process was complete is rather shoddy, and as you say who on earth raised the complaint.
The "offence" is acting as an unregistered chil d minder, but as far as I know from my readng of the case in the newspapers there is no intention to take any action against either of them.
The likely outcome is an early amendment to the law to permit reciprocal arrangements for care between mothers/parents as being exempt from "reward"but then that may have to be limited to 2 children to stop people getting into what would i truth be a commercial arrangement without proper checking.
remember that this sensible regulation (albeit that it has thrown up an anomoly which seems to be silly in this case) exists to protect children and to ensure that those who carry out childminding for some reward on a regular basis are registered and checked for child protection purposes.
The full time child minder who lives next door. _________________ WE ARE NOT STRANGERS, JUST FRIENDS WHO HAVE NEVER MET.
If yu just looka fter someone's child without any reward then you do not have to be registered. however these two ladies agreed to job share, and look after the other's chld when they were not working. The "reward" was free childcare so the regulations applied
there are exceptions for casual / irregular care as is said in the thread. Less than 2 hours at a time or less than 14 days a year.
The two ladies concerned will have no problem pasing the registration process including CRB checking
The "offence" is acting as an unregistered chil d minder, but as far as I know from my readng of the case in the newspapers there is no intention to take any action against either of them.
My point is that there shouldnt be a law to have the right to help look after your friends anklebiter.
Its ludicrous that they didnt even dismiss from the start with common sense. No. They have to pursue it. They must be on a power trip or take a pleasure in looking stupid
Someone must have got a lot of money for thinking up these types of laws and it cant be sensible if it throws out a ridiculous incident like this.
It should be up to the people concerned to raise the matter of CRB checks etc if unsure who you are leaving your kids with.
Where will it stop.
The next thing is that if you host a kids party you will need to have a CRB check done on you and obviously the next step after that is to have a check done on you if you want to start having kids.
MT jnr _________________ THERE ARE 2 RULES TO SUCCESS. RULE 1)DONT TELL EVERYONE WHAT YOU KNOW
I agree with everything you say MT and am glad you are saying it as I know you have kids and the argument people use against me when I try and make them see sense and tell them that the government are trying to control more & more of our lives and trying to stick their nose in to more & more things that don't concern them is "oh well if you had kids you'd think differently". This infuriates me as it simply isn't true. I do not believe in this Orwellian surveillance state that we are fast becoming. I do not believe in the perverse 'guilty until proven innocent' culture of CRB checks. The government do need to maintain a certain amount of control I admit that. Otherwise we would have anarchy. But CCTV, Smoking bans, CRB checks... This is 1984 unfolding before our very eyes!! As the great Thomas Jefferson stated, "when the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fear the people there is liberty!!".
It's enough to make you want to start a revolution!!! _________________ You're born with nothing, and better off that way,
As soon as you got something they send someone to try & take it away!
the fact is that 15 years later there are people involved in this who have not been brought to justice whilst the original "culprits" have been exonerated _________________ Geordie_R
"A should of known there mum was buying banana's"
the fact is that 15 years later there are people involved in this who have not been brought to justice whilst the original "culprits" have been exonerated
Maybe i am not putting my point across very well or you are not seeing it.
All i am saying is that if 2 friends decided to look after each others kids whilst the other one works they should not be subjected to a whole load of red tape.
They are not offering a service to anyone else except themselves.
I quite agree with child minding services being subjected to high level checking (and i havent said anything to the contrary) but not some cack handed form of interpretting the regulations to make these 2 women fit in it so as to make it look as though they are doing their jobs.
Hopefully you will now understand my point.
MT jnr _________________ THERE ARE 2 RULES TO SUCCESS. RULE 1)DONT TELL EVERYONE WHAT YOU KNOW
the fact is that 15 years later there are people involved in this who have not been brought to justice whilst the original "culprits" have been exonerated
Maybe i am not putting my point across very well or you are not seeing it.
All i am saying is that if 2 friends decided to look after each others kids whilst the other one works they should not be subjected to a whole load of red tape.
They are not offering a service to anyone else except themselves.
I quite agree with child minding services being subjected to high level checking (and i havent said anything to the contrary) but not some cack handed form of interpretting the regulations to make these 2 women fit in it so as to make it look as though they are doing their jobs.
Hopefully you will now understand my point.
MT jnr
i undersdtand your point, perhaps you don't get mine
the regulations via which these women have been caught out through a loophole are laudable, correct and sensible.
draftng the in such a way that would exempt the arrangement made by these two is difficult if not impossible. thats the problem. _________________ Geordie_R
"A should of known there mum was buying banana's"
Well we will have to agree to disagree because they shouldnt be classed as a louphole or classed as anything at all except friends helping each other out.
I think anyone else thinking otherwise is petty (not you) minded and full of a liking for red tape nonesense.
Laughable instead of laudable, IMO
MT jnr _________________ THERE ARE 2 RULES TO SUCCESS. RULE 1)DONT TELL EVERYONE WHAT YOU KNOW
I echo what MT says. If you work professionally with children, then checks should be in place to make sure that you have not done anything in the past(although as I stated a while back that doesn't mean you're not going to do anything). However, it should be up to the parents, not the government, to decide who they leave their children with. This law has nothing to do with the safety of children and everything to do with the government trying to control people's lives. If it was genuinely about childrens safety there would not be this ridiculous 2 hour rule! Do the government think that it takes more than 2 hours to abuse a child?
I have not been through a CRB check but we are taking on new staff at work at the moment and they are having to go through CRB checks before they start. The nature of the jobs they will be doing are that they will not be dealing with anyone under the age of 16 to start off with. Even then, they will not be dealing with these people face to face. Please explain Geordie, why they need a CRB check? _________________ You're born with nothing, and better off that way,
As soon as you got something they send someone to try & take it away!
I have not been through a CRB check but we are taking on new staff at work at the moment and they are having to go through CRB checks before they start. The nature of the jobs they will be doing are that they will not be dealing with anyone under the age of 16 to start off with. Even then, they will not be dealing with these people face to face. Please explain Geordie, why they need a CRB check?
Do they have access to the personal data of under 16s? If so, then I think it's wise to check they haven't a prior conviction for sex offenses or fraud. Obviously the CRB checking is a very blunt tool, but it is the only option for weeding out convicted criminals from certain jobs.
As geordie says, the rules are there to protect kids (and probably to prevent potential exploitation of au pairs and the like) and it's extremely hard to write in the clauses that cover sensible arrangements like the two women mentioned; the two hours rule is presumably a stab at drawing the line somewhere. Obviously common sense should apply, but in the wake of the Baby P horror, I guess services would rather be accused of red tape excess than lack of concern. _________________ Known as the catch of the camp.
I have not been through a CRB check but we are taking on new staff at work at the moment and they are having to go through CRB checks before they start. The nature of the jobs they will be doing are that they will not be dealing with anyone under the age of 16 to start off with. Even then, they will not be dealing with these people face to face. Please explain Geordie, why they need a CRB check?
Do they have access to the personal data of under 16s? If so, then I think it's wise to check they haven't a prior conviction for sex offenses or fraud. Obviously the CRB checking is a very blunt tool, but it is the only option for weeding out convicted criminals from certain jobs.
As geordie says, the rules are there to protect kids (and probably to prevent potential exploitation of au pairs and the like) and it's extremely hard to write in the clauses that cover sensible arrangements like the two women mentioned; the two hours rule is presumably a stab at drawing the line somewhere. Obviously common sense should apply, but in the wake of the Baby P horror, I guess services would rather be accused of red tape excess than lack of concern.
Depends what you determine to be personal data Tags. It is possible in some circumstances that they will have access t a name, address, and age of a child yes. But they will not be working directly with children and will only have access to this information if a client has a child. And why do they have to go through a CRB check and I don't? I have access to more information than they will have. But because I joined before CRB checks were in place then I don't have to g through one. Inconsistent if you ask me. If I ever am asked to go through one I will as I don't want to lose my job, but I will make sure my displeasure is known!
_________________ You're born with nothing, and better off that way,
As soon as you got something they send someone to try & take it away!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
