It seems that finally we will be able to stop the army of paedophiles from getting at our kids by vetting pretty much everyone who has contact with children.

Plus it will have the side benefit of putting paedophiles so far under public scrutiny that children will begin to learn that paedo's are everywhere and that you should be suspicious of everyone.

I'm horrified that some supposed "parents" are creating a row that this is going too far and that we don't need this level of interference from the powers-that-be. Won't someone please think of the children and realise that the more checks we can do on everyone, the safer our little angels will be?





I hope that by now everyone's sarcasm detectors are going off the scale

I heard this on the radio. Someone from some childrens' organisation was saying very sensibly that most child abuse occurs in the home. By most, I mean 99.999% of it. Clearly, we should do more to protect these kids.

The solution is obvious - all parents and anyone related to anyone who has or might have children should be tested to see if they're potential child molesters. Since a significant amount of sexual abuse is commited by children, these tests should be done as early as possible.

Clearly, the best thing to do is expose all children to graphic sexual material involving children their own age and see how they react. If any of them like it, they're potential nonces and should be castrated / shot / boiled alive or any of the other things usually suggested on this forum. After all, provention is better than cure.

Prison Officers need to get themselves vetted? Of course, there are so many minors in prison these days!

Edit: If Esther Rantzen is against it, it must be bad!

I was going to write something challenging, witty, profound and fundamentally insightful about all of this.

However, I'm so tired of hearing about the alleged constant danger everyone is from everything that all I can muster is: Bollox, it's all bollox and they can eff off and drown in their own fearful stupidity.

That is all.

I thought you had had your Swine Flu jab early.

Personally I think it is a great excuse to ban kids from public places, just in case someone there hasn't been vetted. This could work for cinema's, restaurants, tourist attractions and anywhere your experience is likely to be ruined by a spoiled brat who's parents have let them run riot.

Hey....didn't this happen in an episode of South Park?

This happens to be the only piece of BBC news I've stumbled across in weeks. I caught it by accident this morning, whilst eating my breakfast. What the [LIFTED] do these authoritarian, dictatorial, mother [LIFTED] think they're doing!!

This is just more [LIFTED] from a [LIFTED] than [LIFTED] government. That's not the best bit though. It was the way the BBC asshole crammed the propaganda down the throats of the nation. The balls on these [LIFTED]!

Now that's a solution I didn't think of!

Don't kill the wolves; just lock up the lambs!

Interestingly MPs are exempt. Go figure.

This reminds me of a radio news piece I heard this week. It was the story of a small (5 years old I think) child who had left the grounds of his school and travelled several miles across busy roads before anyone noticed he was missing and he was 'rescued' by a member of the public.

The presenter interviewed the child's father and his first complaint?

"what if the person who found him had been a paedophile?"

The child had walked several miles through traffic, including across a dual carriageway, and the utter numbskull was more worried that the person who he met at random was one of a very very small percentage of the population, rather than the threat several multiton vehicles moving at 50+MPH posed to him. Dear Lord.

Be interesting to see what the churches have to say...

Of course they are!

They're too busy f***ing the country as a whole to worry about singling out children.