Someone Stop Claude

Crispian wrote:

> I don't mean to sound self-righteous about this whole thing
> but child abuse hits a raw nerve with me. Just look at the
> front page of today's newspaper. Kids sexually abused in a
> hospital. Of course now all doctors and nurses will have to
> go through rigorous checks before they can work there.
>
> Is that being to heavy handed? Invasion of privacy? Or is it
> just common sense?
>
> Is "Sorry, we'll try harder next time." good enough for the
> kids who were already abused at PMH?
>


Hi Crispy.
It's not a pleasant issue and I understand your concerns. But how effective do you think these 'rigorous checks' are actually going to be? 'Sorry' is never good enough for a victim of a crime, but what does 'we'll try harder' mean? How hard? There will always be room for error, unless you reach the extreme point of total isolation...let NO doctors or nurses have any physical contact at all! And to reach this objective of guaranteeing no Bad can get in, how much Good are you keeping out?

You and I have had to go through police clearance checks before being allowed to work in schools for Barking Gecko...but all that means is the police found no record of us having been charged with a crime against children. It doesn't mean we haven't committed one, or that we won't. Just that no one can prove we ever have.

How is anyone really going to do effective screening until a crime is actually committed?

I'm also in two minds about the mentality that says 'once a criminal, always a criminal'...but that seems to be the way it works these days. These sorts of crimes are treated as an incurable sickness which you will never recover from...so god help anyone who wittingly allows themselves to go down that path; you will never finish paying for your crime. That might not be inappropriate, as one could argue that the victim will never finish paying either, for the crime committed against them. I just think it's sad that the concept of 'reform' seems to no longer exist.

But back to this site....what sort of screening measures would be appropriate or effective, if any? I don't see how anything is going to prove useful. Someone may pass through a screen BEFORE committing an offense. Someone who has already offended will surely be able to hide that fact...can we stop someone talking about theatre because they have a criminal record? And meanwhile everyone who is innocently going about their business will need to be subject to invasive screening.
I already find it annoying that the site periodically makes me log on again, virtually mid sentence (BTW, that's the answer to your question about the 'quote' button...it only appears if you've logged in with your registered name)...and I'm not someone who is particularly worried about being called to account for what I say. But I also defend the individual's right to post anonymously; I think some of the best discussions and most honest opinions are put forward when the author doesn't have to be worried about personal repercussions.


It's harsh, but I really think that anyone who responds to the sort of posts you are complaining about should be responsible for themselves. Let the buyer beware. Nobody's young and innocent anymore, that's a sad fact, but it also means that youth today are better informed and ought to be more aware of the dangers they are getting THEMSELVES into. If they're foolish enough to respond to something dodgy, I think they shoulder a good part of the blame.


Cheers
Craig