Proposed national database of children
Discussion
Or National ID Register by the back door?
"Think of the children!" takes on an entirely new meaning when Ruth Kelly proposes a National Register of ALL children from birth to 16 ... to provide "social workers" and their ilk [let's not reopen that, OK? - S] with a reference point for recording and accessing data about individual children "at risk".
Typical Nu Labia thinking ... let's log everything about everyone so as to "protect" a tiny minority [and I don't mean the hopeless social workers - S]
And, of course, provide an opportunity to make money by selling the data to criminals (a la DVLA). Paedophiles please queue on the left
.
If there is one thing in particular about this proposal that points to the generally flawed thinking of BLiar's Babes and his other cronies, and suggests that this is a back-door method to get the National ID Register populated in a mandated manner, it is that Ruth Kelly enthuses that all children will be given an unique number at birth [to be tattooed on their rumps perhaps? - S]. She has clearly forgotten that all children are already given an unique number at birth [actually at registration of the birth - S]. It's called the National Insurance Number.
Streaky
"Think of the children!" takes on an entirely new meaning when Ruth Kelly proposes a National Register of ALL children from birth to 16 ... to provide "social workers" and their ilk [let's not reopen that, OK? - S] with a reference point for recording and accessing data about individual children "at risk".
Typical Nu Labia thinking ... let's log everything about everyone so as to "protect" a tiny minority [and I don't mean the hopeless social workers - S]
And, of course, provide an opportunity to make money by selling the data to criminals (a la DVLA). Paedophiles please queue on the left
. If there is one thing in particular about this proposal that points to the generally flawed thinking of BLiar's Babes and his other cronies, and suggests that this is a back-door method to get the National ID Register populated in a mandated manner, it is that Ruth Kelly enthuses that all children will be given an unique number at birth [to be tattooed on their rumps perhaps? - S]. She has clearly forgotten that all children are already given an unique number at birth [actually at registration of the birth - S]. It's called the National Insurance Number.
Streaky
kenp said:
Agree with the general tone of your argument. No doubt they will want to tax their paper money then as well. Just to be pedantic, you have to survive the first six weeks of life before you get your NI number.
And of course in that 6 weeks they can get up to all sorts of serious crime in that time can't they so they must be registered, logged and date stamped immediately
Just surprised they haven't suggested implanting a 'micro-chip' in them as they do with dogs.
BigBob said:
Just surprised they haven't suggested implanting a 'micro-chip' in them as they do with dogs.
Maybe they have, They just haven't told us yet
. The thing is nothing like this, surprises me anymore, And that is, what is scarey 
.Atb Derek. >> Edited by winnebago nut on Sunday 11th December 02:12
I'ma foster carer and ex BiB so I'll give you my perspective.
An example I had involvement in was that a child who I knew that was on the 'at risk' register moved from Tower Hamlets to Clacton. I contacted Clacton Social Services child team and informed them and said that they might need to see how he was getting on. They had no record of him or any idea of the background. He was only known to be 'at risk' in Tower Hamlets. So next step is Clacton contacting Tower Hamlets who then have to wait for the relevent Social worker to contact them back.
As a concerned individual, I kept on Clactons casefor 4 days and they still didn't have the information they needed. Luckily nothing happened to the kid but you can see the potential.
There is already a database of children, NHS medical records. What they are proposing just pulls together more pertinent information and more importantly allows at risk kids to be better protected. My only concerns are how the database is accessed and in my view, that needs to be as tight as the PNC with similar punishment for unauthorised access.
Scott
An example I had involvement in was that a child who I knew that was on the 'at risk' register moved from Tower Hamlets to Clacton. I contacted Clacton Social Services child team and informed them and said that they might need to see how he was getting on. They had no record of him or any idea of the background. He was only known to be 'at risk' in Tower Hamlets. So next step is Clacton contacting Tower Hamlets who then have to wait for the relevent Social worker to contact them back.
As a concerned individual, I kept on Clactons casefor 4 days and they still didn't have the information they needed. Luckily nothing happened to the kid but you can see the potential.
There is already a database of children, NHS medical records. What they are proposing just pulls together more pertinent information and more importantly allows at risk kids to be better protected. My only concerns are how the database is accessed and in my view, that needs to be as tight as the PNC with similar punishment for unauthorised access.
Scott
purpleheadedcerb said:
I'ma foster carer and ex BiB so I'll give you my perspective.
An example I had involvement in was that a child who I knew that was on the 'at risk' register moved from Tower Hamlets to Clacton. I contacted Clacton Social Services child team and informed them and said that they might need to see how he was getting on. They had no record of him or any idea of the background. He was only known to be 'at risk' in Tower Hamlets. So next step is Clacton contacting Tower Hamlets who then have to wait for the relevent Social worker to contact them back.
As a concerned individual, I kept on Clactons casefor 4 days and they still didn't have the information they needed. Luckily nothing happened to the kid but you can see the potential.
There is already a database of children, NHS medical records. What they are proposing just pulls together more pertinent information and more importantly allows at risk kids to be better protected. My only concerns are how the database is accessed and in my view, that needs to be as tight as the PNC with similar punishment for unauthorised access.
Scott
I hear where you're coming from on this - I work within the schools pastoral system.
Don't really see how a database would improve things though unless other procedures are also implemented and caseload per social worker reduced. As you said, Clacton were aware that the child was 'at risk' because you had told them - I note that Tower Hamlets hadn't told them, so they were still dependant on an outside agency.
Why hadn't TH told them - undoubtably because they were just too busy, so a database wouldn't have helped on its own.
The real problem IMO lies in the fact that people just don't trust the governance of this country anymore, doubt the reasons/excuses for the government collecting information and doubt the governments ability to run ANY major computer system accurately and properly.
winnebago nut said:
Just surprised they haven't suggested implanting a 'micro-chip' in them as they do with dogs.
Maybe they have, They just haven't told us yet
>> Edited by winnebago nut on Sunday 11th December 02:12
You know that bit where, at birth, you get a brief look at your newborn then it's rushed off out of sight for a couple of minutes......................
MoJo.
purpleheadedcerb said:
[ ... ]
There is already a database of children, NHS medical records. What they are proposing just pulls together more pertinent information and more importantly allows at risk kids to be better protected. My only concerns are how the database is accessed and in my view, that needs to be as tight as the PNC with similar punishment for unauthorised access.
Scott
purpleheadedcerb said:
I'ma foster carer and ex BiB so I'll give you my perspective.
An example I had involvement in was that a child who I knew that was on the 'at risk' register moved from Tower Hamlets to Clacton. I contacted Clacton Social Services child team and informed them and said that they might need to see how he was getting on. They had no record of him or any idea of the background. He was only known to be 'at risk' in Tower Hamlets. So next step is Clacton contacting Tower Hamlets who then have to wait for the relevent Social worker to contact them back.
As a concerned individual, I kept on Clactons casefor 4 days and they still didn't have the information they needed. Luckily nothing happened to the kid but you can see the potential.
There is already a database of children, NHS medical records. What they are proposing just pulls together more pertinent information and more importantly allows at risk kids to be better protected. My only concerns are how the database is accessed and in my view, that needs to be as tight as the PNC with similar punishment for unauthorised access.
Scott
Fine, except the problem is too often not the lack of knowledge but getting anyone to do anything about it, because of the mass of nonsense cases. "at risk" covers so much ground these days as to be useless.
BigBob said:
And of course in that 6 weeks they can get up to all sorts of serious crime in that time can't they so they must be registered, logged and date stamped immediately
Well in that first 6 weeks of life they have to have photo id or else they cannot travel free on the buses round our way. Anyone <16 and >65 has to have prrof of age AND photo id in order to qualify.
Seen mothers of new borns made to pay as no photo id available. You just couldn't make it up.
Yes yes I was actually catching a bus, amazing isn't it! Still recovering from shock.
:hangs head in shame:
My point about the PNC being tight is that you have to have access and give reasons for the request that can at least be audited.
If people are concerned about any nonce working within social services or any nonce that has a friend working within Social Sevices gaining acces to information on a child for whatever reason then at least if it was a pnc type system, if said child gets fiddled with or killed at a later date, then they can see who accessed information on that child and why.
That in itself should be enough of a deterrent for any illigetimate access.
FiF. Yes I see where you are coming from totally. Maybe I had my rose tinted glasses on when thinking about the Government and computer systems! And again, your point regarding social services tracking vulnerable kids is very important. AFAIK, even 2 months down the line, after changing schools the child I was referring to would have still been off the radar until people in his new area had concerns. At which point they would try and track back information. This is a bit hit and miss really.
Scott
If people are concerned about any nonce working within social services or any nonce that has a friend working within Social Sevices gaining acces to information on a child for whatever reason then at least if it was a pnc type system, if said child gets fiddled with or killed at a later date, then they can see who accessed information on that child and why.
That in itself should be enough of a deterrent for any illigetimate access.
FiF. Yes I see where you are coming from totally. Maybe I had my rose tinted glasses on when thinking about the Government and computer systems! And again, your point regarding social services tracking vulnerable kids is very important. AFAIK, even 2 months down the line, after changing schools the child I was referring to would have still been off the radar until people in his new area had concerns. At which point they would try and track back information. This is a bit hit and miss really.
Scott
autismuk said:
I'ma foster carer and ex BiB so I'll give you my perspective.
An example I had involvement in was that a child who I knew that was on the 'at risk' register moved from Tower Hamlets to Clacton. I contacted Clacton Social Services child team and informed them and said that they might need to see how he was getting on. They had no record of him or any idea of the background. He was only known to be 'at risk' in Tower Hamlets. So next step is Clacton contacting Tower Hamlets who then have to wait for the relevent Social worker to contact them back.
As a concerned individual, I kept on Clactons casefor 4 days and they still didn't have the information they needed. Luckily nothing happened to the kid but you can see the potential.
There is already a database of children, NHS medical records. What they are proposing just pulls together more pertinent information and more importantly allows at risk kids to be better protected. My only concerns are how the database is accessed and in my view, that needs to be as tight as the PNC with similar punishment for unauthorised access.
Scott
Fine, except the problem is too often not the lack of knowledge but getting anyone to do anything about it, because of the mass of nonsense cases. "at risk" covers so much ground these days as to be useless.
True. It does cover a wide area but I would argue that its better to know some information than nothing at all.
It is worth bearing in mind that 20 million more NI numbers than population growth has been recorded since their introduction. Using a population of 60 million plus population turnover of approx 60 million since 1948 (annual deathrate @1 million), means that 1 in 7 NI numbers are moody.
purpleheadedcerb said:
FiF. Yes I see where you are coming from totally. Maybe I had my rose tinted glasses on when thinking about the Government and computer systems! And again, your point regarding social services tracking vulnerable kids is very important. AFAIK, even 2 months down the line, after changing schools the child I was referring to would have still been off the radar until people in his new area had concerns. At which point they would try and track back information. This is a bit hit and miss really.
Scott
As a former governor of a secondary school I know it often had out-of-county pupils arrive under a fostering arrangement with no background at all. A few weeks later they may move on again.
While such a database is fine for educational purposes it is a bit sinister if maintained after (say) age 16.
16 should be the cut off unless that person has a disibility or learning difficulty that actually leaves them vulnerable at 16.
The example I was usuing wasn't a child in Foster care. When he went to a new school, there wouldn't have been any other information given to the school other than what his Mother would have provided (and she was the problem!)
Scott
The example I was usuing wasn't a child in Foster care. When he went to a new school, there wouldn't have been any other information given to the school other than what his Mother would have provided (and she was the problem!)
Scott
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff