Pages

Monday, 7 April 2014

Mandy Tory Reporting !


Do you know what Mandatory Reporting is, or what will happen if it is driven through Parliament any time soon ?

Today, I stumbled across someone who claimed to be able to explain the whole concept in 5 minutes ! Brilliant, I thought, bring it on !



Ok @Mandate Now tell us all, what is wring with the current system of reporting real and suspected abuse ?



 'Behavioural expectation' in other words, we cannot rely on staff in these 'Regulated Activities' to tell their next in command. Worse still, it would appear that these Designated Safety Officer's don't have the skills to assess claims or concerns raised, according to Mandate Now that is !



Before we go any further, I should advise the reader the meaning of 'Regulated Activities'


http://www.thesurvivorstrust.org/documents/5-minute-guide.pdf

BTW these are the folks behind 'mandate now' !





I thought I'd ask them a few questions, firstly I wanted to know WHO would provide the 'specialist training' that the DSO's require.  


I cannot show you the response I got to this and my next question about their 'research' into False Allegations because after I responded to their request for clarification about the 'point' I was trying to make, this happened !



Here's what they say about False Allegations enclosed in my second tweet !



I can't think why they would take umbrage at what is a perfectly reasonable comment, after all, they HAVE NOT done much research have they ? Oh well, I guess I'll live without being able to follow this lot, we will hear enough about them at a later date I'm sure.

They are kinda hypocritical though don't you think, when you consider their barrage of tweets to the NSPCC today including this one !



The NSPCC do not support 'blanket Mandatory reporting'. From their statement in March 2014 !


http://www.nspcc.org.uk/news-and-views/latest-news/2014/mandatory-reporting/mandatory-reporting_wda101963.html

Emm, maybe they will regret the pandora's box they co opened in January 2013, that one involving 'victims' and voices !!

There's been lots of coverage today of former DPP and future government Minister's, interview on Radio 4. He was talking about the victims law that he hope's will replace proper law, much like his Savile Polis replaced the real Police !  

 I wonder if the BBC got the next bit right as it implies that 'victims' should themselves be MADE to report incidents whether they want to or not - PLEASE FEEL free to correct me if I'm wrong, because this next bit does NOT make sense !




 Or does it ? Is he saying that alleged 'victims' can by pass the Police Station as well as cross examination in a court of Law ? Dear me, this just get's worse !

Here's what teachers have to look forward to if they vote labour in the general election !





Only a fool would risk the wrath of the most combatant of combatant national unions and guarantee non election success by saying the following !


I covered the issue of Mandatory Reporting back in October 2013 in a blog post that included the following NSPCC tweet !

 

http://rabbitaway.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/mandatory-reporting-first-21-mins-of.html

The battle lines appear to be drawn and the vested interests are all lining up for a piece of the 'victims' cake.  I still don't know HOW MR will work in practice or WHO will force staff to report suspicions to a senior designated person, maybe the threat of a few years in prison will help. 

And, just WHO will provide that 'specialist training' that the likes of NAPAC seem so keen to sanction - I wonder !


In case you are in any doubt, MR will fall within Safeguarding legislation !


 

I don't see MWT's name anywhere on this site, not like him to be shy, but this is his company isn't it ?



http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/24/mark-williams-thomas-jimmy-savile







6 comments:

  1. Weird - just checked and I'm blocked by @mandatenow. Never said a word against them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, but they was in one of the tweets u responded to Margaret. They don't like discussing their data do they ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. How could anyone object to mandatory reporting? Especially when it is linked to the issue of "child abuse".

    The problem will begin though when somebody is taken to court and it is alleged that they MUST have been aware of a crime. When they then say, "But I saw no crime occur" then they will be accused of lying and be prosecuted for this crime of not reporting something that they never knew about in the first place.

    You have already seen this in the general sense with the thousands and thousands of people who used to work for the BBC over fifty years who MUST have known what Savile was up to, but covered it up by not telling what they knew. Now take this out of the realm of mere press bullshit and hand it over to legal sharks like Slaver & Gorgon for example. Someone such as Savile's old Producers and colleagues would undoubtedly be liable to prosecution and quite likely be deemed guilty of NOT reporting what the Spindler Police have PROVED was going on.......

    Stands to reason.... doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The proponents say nothing about the finer details of their planned law e.g what happens after someone reports etc etc. How can they not want to share this information with the general public ? Have they even considered the ramifications ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I noticed that one of the petitioners the politicals are clustering around is riding on the back of the dreadful case of the little Polish boy. Given that in that case the little fellow had been surrounded by social workers and all the paraphernalia of the modern State, I'm really struggling to see what relevance that case has to a law supposedly challenging the keeping of secrets. The Something must be done syndrome I guess.

      Any law supported by NAPAC has my No vote against it anyway, simply on the basis that whatever they support is almost certainly bogus.

      Delete
  5. Indeed, the pretend charities and starmites are exploiting a real case to push through their badly thought out 'law' and that I find dispicable. On a positive note, there was quite an interesting response to Starmer's radio 4 gig from the legal fraternity on twitter. We are not alone, perhaps the ex DPP won't what he wants so easily after all !

    ReplyDelete