The law is an ass.

Who would be responsible if something serious happened to a child in that 15 mins plus? Who would end up paying for treatment? Does said neighbour know first aid etc.?

Old_Punk wrote:Who would be responsible if something serious happened to a child in that 15 mins plus? Who would end up paying for treatment? Does said neighbour know first aid etc.?

the parent of the injured child
the parent of the injured child
I have no idea

since this woman is not operating a business or taking money from the other Parents she is not liable for anything.


State Representative Brian Calley is drafting legislation that would exempt people who agree to care for non-dependent children from daycare rules as long as they're not engaged in a business.

"We have babysitting police running around this state violating people, threatening to put them in jail or fine them $1,000 for helping their neighbor (that) is truly outrageous" says Rep. Calley.

How old would a non dependant child be in the US?

Tytonidae wrote:It is preferable imo., to have rules for the common good. I suppose it's about balance in the end.
I don't see why some people needn't recycle?
I don't see what's bad about having checks on carers of children when it's regular and out of the family home, or in it for that matter. Often S yl, leaving child rearing entirely to the parents, with no control of law, would lead to all sorts! and as it is when something goes wrong the 'authorities' are blamed.
Some countries don't have government interference, or any worthwhile democratic government to speak of, the people in 'power' don't care, or give a damn about their populace as far as I can see; I'd detest that way of life.
We are our brothers keeper.

I agree with you completely on this.

What amazes me, someone can interfere with 2 responsible mothers, working out a good arrangment, where their children are looked after. Check them by all means, of course a childs safety is paramount. If I have read the same as everyone else, these children WERE safe and happy.

On the other hand, a child can be so illtreated, it dies, (this would be AFTER the council has become involved) time and time again.

Not so long ago, I actually reported a couple, for blatantly illtreating their son. He would be locked in the garage, with the family dog, for long periods. Other people told me this, but did,nt bother to complain themselves. I went round to the house, and saw things for myself, I was on the phone, the next day.

No one else bothered.

These kids though, who were in no danger at all, have been seen as "at risk" in some way.....It makes no sense to me.

Old_Punk wrote:How old would a non dependant child be in the US?

18 yrs
with a few rare exceptions.
in california a minor can divorce his parents
this is only seen in hollywood when a child star divorces his parents after proving to the courts that their parents are just stealing all their money

its perfectly legal to send your children down the street alone to the bus stop here to wait for the school bus.

in our neighborhood the mommies take turns standing down there with the kids until the bus arrives.

we are in the exact situation.

but the difference is that our local government doesnt try to fine or imprison our mommies for doing something completely rational.

chronos wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:How old would a non dependant child be in the US?

18 yrs
with a few rare exceptions.
in california a minor can divorce his parents
this is only seen in hollywood when a child star divorces his parents after proving to the courts that their parents are just stealing all their money

so that extra rule would of no use at all if it is for over 18s

Syl wrote:What amazes me, someone can interfere with 2 responsible mothers, working out a good arrangment, where their children are looked after. Check them by all means, of course a childs safety is paramount. If I have read the same as everyone else, these children WERE safe and happy.

On the other hand, a child can be so illtreated, it dies, (this would be AFTER the council has become involved) time and time again.

Not so long ago, I actually reported a couple, for blatantly illtreating their son. He would be locked in the garage, with the family dog, for long periods. Other people told me this, but did,nt bother to complain themselves. I went round to the house, and saw things for myself, I was on the phone, the next day.

No one else bothered.

These kids though, who were in no danger at all, have been seen as "at risk" in some way.....It makes no sense to me.

I believe there is an idiosyncrasy in law that a child can be shut in a room, or even tied up on a leash, if it is proved that they can come to no harm, no law is broken ( think child reins !!!!).

I wonder if the opinions will be the same after the Vanessa George case verdict is reached.

Old_Punk wrote:I wonder if the opinions will be the same after the Vanessa George case verdict is reached.

Yes, I wonder.
Was she not a paid employer, at a registered nursery? I presume approved and passed by the local council,.. to be a fitting and safe place for mothers to leave their children.

I think I would prefer a trusted friend and neighbour to be in charge of my offspring.

She started off doing it for free as a neighbour, doing favours for friends etc. just like the ones moaning, funny that.

Any ideas what percentage of paedos are known to the abuser as family or friends? It is huge.

Yes, I think many paedophiles are in the same family as the children they abuse.
I think we are digressing a bit from this thread though, dont you?

I have always made my own arrangements with people regarding my life and that of my kids.
My kids now do the same but somehow ...this has become dangerous in some of your heads ...you've been brainwashed or something.
All the police checks in the world haven't prevented scores of probl;ems from happening.
Some of you seem to believe we should have rubber pavements in case we tripo and fall.
Guess what ...living on planet earth and being human and a responsible adult ...carries risks and so it should.

jack wrote:I have always made my own arrangements with people regarding my life and that of my kids.
My kids now do the same but somehow ...this has become dangerous in some of your heads ...you've been brainwashed or something.
All the police checks in the world haven't prevented scores of probl;ems from happening.
Some of you seem to believe we should have rubber pavements in case we tripo and fall.
Guess what ...living on planet earth and being human and a responsible adult ...carries risks and so it should.

Apparently now though, according to many, we are'nt capable of knowing whats best for our own children.
Like I said, a nanny state.

Syl wrote:Yes, I think many paedophiles are in the same family as the children they abuse.
I think we are digressing a bit from this thread though, dont you?

Not just family, friends too. Not at all it is a valid point especially as certain accused started off as doing for mates and neighbours.

Old_Punk wrote:

Syl wrote:Yes, I think many paedophiles are in the same family as the children they abuse.
I think we are digressing a bit from this thread though, dont you?

Not just family, friends too. Not at all it is a valid point especially as certain accused started off as doing for mates and neighbours.

Well of course some paedos started out in life with friends and fucking neighbours.
You know something OP ...these cretins have been around since the begining of time and the human race has managed to get this far.
If I decide I want someone I know to look after my kids ...your happy with that being a criminal offence?

Old Punk,
You seem to be making the presumption, that these two women, who know and trust each other, who's children are like siblings to one another, dont have the sense to make a judgment, re their own childrens welfare.
You seem to think the state has more judgment,, yet the state, local councils, ect, employ paedofiles in the very places where trusting parents leave their kids.

You yourself highlighted a woman who WORKED in one of these places.

Ultimately, yes, there are risks involved in having someone look after your children and if something does go wrong, it was the risk the parents took;Kids still suffer though.
Are we to have no rules then? and if we are to have some, a line must be drawn and it has been. Nothing is foolproof, risk minimising is the best on offer.

What these mums could have said is: "oh, we didn't know about these rules, we will make other arrangements for now and submit to checks, after all it is in the best interests of children, we understand that in some cases there could be a problem"

Did the mums go to a newspaper?

Old_Punk wrote:

chronos wrote:

Old_Punk wrote:How old would a non dependant child be in the US?

18 yrs
with a few rare exceptions.
in california a minor can divorce his parents
this is only seen in hollywood when a child star divorces his parents after proving to the courts that their parents are just stealing all their money

so that extra rule would of no use at all if it is for over 18s

no no you misunderstand.
in this case the use of the term "non-dependent child" means a child who is not your child. Not a dependent as claimed on your income tax forms.

It is not in the best interests of families or children for the state to be making it a criminal offence for parents to stand on their own two feet and make their own decisions.

crikey any parent who has a trusting relationship with their child could only hope that the child would come to them and tell them if anything was worrying them! all this paedophillia that is coming into the open has been happening for years! if we as parents and Grandparents made sure our children /grandchildren could trust us to listen , then perhaps it could be curtailed ; I used to as a youngster go to a school pals house and stay as he would at my dads it was normal he would call my dad uncle I would call his dad uncle no pervy crap as I knew If something was worrying me I could talk to my dad! nowadays as has been happening seemingly more in the last 30 years or so kids are afraid to talk to parents( some twots at schools and what the ones that can read and write read in the tabloids put them in the fear of God due to the scaremongering about social services and the bloudy law)If a child is brought up to know that if they can talk to a responsible adult ie their parents then they will not feel afraid of letting them know if something they feel is wrong. We are really making this country a nany state and Edd Balls and his cronies are Talking Balls imho

Del ...next our kids will only be able to talk to the authorities.

jack wrote:Del ...next our kids will only be able to talk to the authorities.

Huet gueren? they were the ruddy perpetrators, I would rather my grandchildren came to me and I would be so ruddy loud the officails would listen

Communication is key between children and parents, on every level, I agree; no help to a child under communicable age though - the most vulnerable group. If it were up to me, there would be no childcare for the under 4's.

This case becomes more interesting. Two police officers breaking the law - who'd a thought it