Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
30 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Mother banned from looking after each other's children rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Daily Mail wrote:
Two working mothers have been banned from looking after each other's toddlers because they are not registered childminders.

The close friends' private arrangement had let them both return to part-time jobs at the same company.

However, a whistleblower reported them to the education watchdog Ofsted and it found their informal deal broke the law.
Two young mothers enjoy a picnic with their children

Two working mothers have been banned from looking after each other's toddlers because they are not registered childminders (a file picture above)

This was because little-known rules say friends cannot gain a 'reward' by looking after a child for more than two hours outside the child's home without agreeing to a number of checks including one from the Criminal Records Bureau.


Full Daily Mail article is here.

Edit: Also picked up by the BBC here.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Shogren
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
These mothers are clearly criminal and it is clear that the children should be removed from the homes as fast as possible in order to protect the children. It wouldn't surprise many to hear in a few days the laundry list of other criminal antics that these selfish woman are engaged in.

So says the state, so goes the country...

What's the problem here anyway? You have a problem with laws being enforced or something? Are you one of those anarchists?

24 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Audacon wrote:
These mothers are clearly criminal and it is clear that the children should be removed from the homes as fast as possible in order to protect the children. It wouldn't surprise many to hear in a few days the laundry list of other criminal antics that these selfish woman are engaged in.

So says the state, so goes the country...

What's the problem here anyway? You have a problem with laws being enforced or something? Are you one of those anarchists?

Very true. I look forward to the day that our streets are safe from such ne'er do wells.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Sytsma
United States
Wyoming
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Looks like we have a similar situation Grand Rapids Press

Grand Rapids Press wrote:
Lawmaker looks to make change after Middleville mom ordered to stop watching friends' children waiting for bus
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
If Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Then Actions x2 Speak Louder Than Actions
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
badge
One of the Original Twelve
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would TOTALLY let those ladies watch my kids. Purrrrrr!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I would not be surprised for this to be completely true. In my town there are a bunch of petty ordinances, and not only are there yearly inspections (I once got busted and sent a letter asking me to remove a "Parking for Bagpiper's Only" sign near my garage, one of those small ones you get at novelty shops), but neighbors are told to snitch on people who violate these ordinances. Never doubt a bureaucrat's desire to wield every scrap of power thrown his way.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
chiddler wrote:
BagpipeDan wrote:
I would not be surprised for this to be completely true. In my town there are a bunch of petty ordinances, and not only are there yearly inspections (I once got busted and sent a letter asking me to remove a "Parking for Bagpiper's Only" sign near my garage, one of those small ones you get at novelty shops), but neighbors are told to snitch on people who violate these ordinances. Never doubt a bureaucrat's desire to wield every scrap of power thrown his way.


Given the Daily Mail's burning desire for this to be true, i strongly suspect its either partially true, or entirely false. Never underestimate the British Press's total lack of journalistic scruples.


I would imagine they don't need to make facts up to find an example like this, since as I've said I have direct experience with it (yes, more than the sign thing) living in a town where petty ordinances are the lifeblood of sad bureaucrats. While it may be true that most people if confronted with this in the town would say it's stupid, who thinks it's stupid enough that they would spend energy trying to hold their government accountable? Very few, I'd wager.

On the other hand, if you were around for the "Church group asked to stop meeting at man's house" story (if not, short story is there was no religious persecution, there were parking and neighbor issues) it is easy to twist stories like this to make them seem bigger than they are. Personally, though, this one struck home with me.

Recently in my town a local man who was here when it was still a rural community was asked to stop selling produce on his front lawn because he was violating the separation between business and residential zoning whatevers. Fuck these bureaucrats.

It is sad, though, that so much of my life is spent trying to figure out who I distrust more.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Thrower
United Kingdom
Bath
Somerset
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm pretty confident it's true. It's all over the BBC now and they're usually pretty good at checking their facts.

I actually think this is a storm in a teacup situation. Yes, it's clearly ridiculous that what these women were doing was illegal under a particularly idiotic interpretation of the written law. But the response of government has been an immediate investigation into the manner in which the law is written and applied.

People who write laws often leave unintended consequences. People who apply them are sometimes guilty of being over-zealous. This is all natural, normal, unavoidable stuff. The correct response is to evaluate the problem and make sensible changes and that's what seems to be happening here.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The real question is, how can we blame this on Obama?
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin
msg tools
badge
Avatar
TheChin! wrote:
The real question is, how can we blame this on Obama?


Due to being in the Obama-cession, i.e. the drastic worldwide economic downturn that started on Jan. 20, 2009, or by some accounts on Nov. 4, 2008, hard-working mothers can no longer afford to pay for quality childcare. Therefore they must put their children in fly-by-night childcare centers that are barely one step above chaining them to a tree. None of this would've happened if Obama had not ruined the economy through socialism.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dwayne Hendrickson
United States
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
The real question is, how can we blame this on Obama?


Report it to flags@whitehouse.gov
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Samuel Sol
Brazil
São Paulo
SP
flag msg tools
All engines full to awesome land!
badge
*tap* *tap* Is this thing on?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ahhhh UK. You have a wonderful way to keep the family segregated and apart from each other. Or, which is more probable, this is an issue of Unions. Unions here at least are getting very silly to protect their investment and power base group, and try to elect every kind of silly legislation like this.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Louise Holden
United Kingdom
York
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The story seems to be quite straightforward. We have regulations requiring people who look after other people's children to be registered and to comply with things like health regulations and standards of care, and a regularly checked safe environment. So far so relatively unobjectionable.

The rules don't extend to people looking after their family members, like grandparents and aunts/uncles. Nor do they extend to people looking after children for less than 2 hours a day, or for less than 14 days a year (I think, without checking), or between 6pm and something am- so not standard evening babysitters. Nor do they include care for no reward, so if your son's friend regularly comes home with him for a few hours after school it doesn't matter. Finally they don't include care in the child's own home, so nannying arrangements and most babysitting is out.

The rules as drawn up try to catch commercial arrangements while excluding casual or family ones. Where these particular women got caught is that each looked after the other's child during one day in exchange for having their own child cared for on the other day. That is, in any real sense of the word, a (mutually beneficial) commercial arrangement. It's not being done as a favour, or out of family affection- it's being done in order to get childcare for their children. It's not in any way an objectionable arrangement but I'm not at all surprised that it comes within the rules covering commercial childminding, even though there was no business motive.

It is not Ofsted's job (and should not be within their power) to decide to ignore the regulations in selected cases. It is the government's job to decide if the regulations need to be changed to exclude these situations. That seems to be exactly what is happening. In the meantime the women have some options; they could do their minding in the home of the other child, which would move them out of the regulations into a basic mutual babysitting arrangement. Or they could presumably register as childminders, which is a fuss but not impossible.

The whole thing is really no big deal. But people like screaming Oppression. Unless you want to jettison the whole idea of registering commercial childminders (which I happen to think would be a very bad idea) then this sort of thing is going to happen, and get sorted out, every so often.
9 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
louiseh wrote:
The whole thing is really no big deal. But people like screaming Oppression.


People like screaming "government thrusting itself violently into our private lives and becoming a burden to extract rather than a tool to assist." Fuck the bureaucrats and "reasonable explanations" for disrupting lives unnecessarily.

edit: actually to be fair "oppression" is exactly the right word for it. I guess my concern is that you seem to think this is something else, and that is uncomfortable for me and hopefully an opinion that is becoming less popular, not more
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
The whole thing is really no big deal


Actually I was discussing this article with somebody IRL and I realized it's this statement and this one

Quote:
We have regulations requiring people who look after other people's children to be registered and to comply with things like health regulations and standards of care, and a regularly checked safe environment. So far so relatively unobjectionable.


That I find troublesome. This desire, and almost instinctual need, to regulate is a dangerous one. "There should be a law" is one of the most dangerous phrases I know, and casual acceptance of allowing people with power the ability to interfere with the life of somebody else is even more so.

The only thing that gives me a smile about this is the irony that the "nanny state" is regulating nannies. And even that's not a very happy smile.

I really, really hate stuff like this if you couldn't tell.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Louise Holden
United Kingdom
York
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BagpipeDan wrote:
louiseh wrote:
The whole thing is really no big deal. But people like screaming Oppression.


People like screaming "government thrusting itself violently into our private lives and becoming a burden to extract rather than a tool to assist." Fuck the bureaucrats and "reasonable explanations" for disrupting lives unnecessarily.

edit: actually to be fair "oppression" is exactly the right word for it. I guess my concern is that you seem to think this is something else, and that is uncomfortable for me and hopefully an opinion that is becoming less popular, not more


My dictionary gives two meanings for "oppression", tyranny and being overburdensome. I don't happen to think that either apply- I am willing to accept that you can legitimately consider the second appropriate, but the first ("absolute power cruelly administered") just strikes me as a complete misunderstanding of what is going on here.

You, and many other people, object to what you see as undue interference in private affairs by the government (in this case, my government), and you are unhappy not just with my opinion but that I hold it at all.

But there are plenty of people who prefer to live in a society where a limited number of things are regulated, and the environment in which someone who they don't know personally is going to look after their children is often one of those things.

(I am, incidentally, fiercely opposed to the extent to which this is currently being taken in the UK, where contact between children and adults is becoming more and more constrained, with people having to undergo criminal background checks in order to have the most fleeting organised contact with children in clubs and schools. I don't think that a society that fears its adults collectively is a healthy one. But that has very little to do with the principle here. Being in favour of the existence of some regulations is very different from being in favour of any particular regulations.)

And regulatory systems require regulations, and people to enforce them.

You have three choices; you can either reject the whole idea of regulation and have a free market free-for-all. Which may well be what you prefer, but then you have to accept that some people are going to get food poisoning from unregulated restaurant kitchens, and some people are going to die as a result of people and cars being on the road that are unfit to drive, and some children are going to have accidents in the homes of carers who don't take basic safety precautions, and some people are going to be assaulted by unregistered taxi drivers. And so on. And maybe that's a price worth paying to avoid government interference, but there's lot of people who wouldn't agree.

Or you can have a regulatory system that is enforced by people who have the power to ignore the regulations if they don't like the result. Which is also possible but fits quite badly with a democratic system. As one of our recent tax judgments said, what is taxed by law cannot be untaxed by concession. And you'd better have a very high standard of public servant if you're giving them that kind of power.

Or you can have a regulatory system that is enforced by reference to the rules. And sometimes it will have unintended results. My job for the last six years or so has involved a lot of dealing with the unintended results of legislation and it hasn't changed my view that the best way of dealing with such is by changing the law.

In an ideal world everyone would do their jobs competently and safely. But it isn't. Some people think governments have a role in ensuring that the people you can't know personally but have to rely on have minimal standards to keep you safe- some people don't, and some people do but don't think that the right things, or that too many things, are being regulated. It's quite possible to hold any of those views without regarding the people who work within the system and the government who introduced it as the spawn of the Devil.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chiddler wrote:
(caused by safety regulations being ignored)


But you always seem to remain confident that more regulation is the answer. cry

Maybe we should have less regulation with some real teeth and enforce it?

Contrary to what you think, most libertarians don't oppose all law, just the stupid ones.
7 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
chiddler wrote:
You think there should be no regulation of childcare?

You want more situations like the tragedy in mexico when all those kids died in the daycare centre fire?


Step in the hysterical liberal, pass a bad law, everybody's tolerance for inanity drops a bit, lather rinse repeat until there's a revolution. History history turn turn turn.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
I want the world we have, not the one my hysterical reaction has lead me to devise you imagine would be better.


Fixed that for you, though I admit it's not as catchy and makes your whole post look like a response to something I didn't actually say but simply further justifies my opinions and also my newly-forming theory that people do have a desire to be placed under the power of others, not just the desire to place others under such power.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
DCAnderson wrote:
Well if by that you mean people generally think that the rule of law is a good thing, then yes.


I don't.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
DCAnderson wrote:
...., but here is my incredibly boring take on the situation ......

Some of maturing seems to consist of recognising that "boring" can at times be the most effective state. Excitement does not always lead to better things.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Samuel Sol
Brazil
São Paulo
SP
flag msg tools
All engines full to awesome land!
badge
*tap* *tap* Is this thing on?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:

Now this is what will happen next:

4) The law will be modified so as to not cause this problem again.

5) Everyone moves on with their lives.


That's what we hope not necessarily what will happen.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.