Say ‘No’ To Mandatory Reporting ‘Lite’

David Cameron

The Prime Minister’s proposal that public sector staff and councillors responsible for the welfare of vulnerable children who fail to alert police to evidence that children are being sexually abused could face criminal prosecution and imprisonment does not go far enough.

This is Mandatory Reporting ‘Lite’.

Mandatory Reporting ‘Lite’ does not cover private schools, it does not cover the Catholic church, it does not cover the Anglican church, or Jehovah Witnesses, or Islamic or Jewish groups. It does not cover the Scouting association and many other organisations that deal with children every day.

Say ‘No’ to Mandatory Reporting ‘Lite’.

Demand the real thing.

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

14 responses to “Say ‘No’ To Mandatory Reporting ‘Lite’

  1. Pingback: Say ‘No’ To Mandatory Reporting ‘Lite’ | Alternative News Network

  2. It doesn’t seem to cover Westminster either. Funny that!

  3. Sabre

    It literally covers Westminster, leaves scope for further ‘undiscoverable abuse’.

    • No mention of Westminster in the above report. I’m not so much referring to the borough as to parliament and the pals of Cameron who he’s covering up for.

  4. littlenan

    I cannot see where it covers the police and judiciary either.

  5. Mike E

    So what’ the betting that by the time the law passes it will be a crime for anyone in any walk of life to be aware of CSA and not report it to police. And ‘anyone’ will include victims who did not report abuse at the time it was happening.

  6. Anyone got a link to the text of the law?

  7. dpack

    perhaps all citizens should do whatever they can to protect those at risk of any type of harm but those with a direct duty of care in any capacity are especially well placed to be good citizens.

    the threat of criminal penalty for failing to protect should not be necessary ,if it is perhaps we need a different set of folk in positions of care .

  8. Jason

    If you need the “threat” of prosecution to force you to speak up on behalf of a child (or “vulnerable adult”) at risk of abuse then you’re not fit to be called a human let alone a” professional”

  9. Andy Barnett

    Employees of any organisation, whom it is reasonable to conclude has a duty of care towards children, should be included within this law. It should include all the bodies (public, private or 3rd sector) dealing directly with children (for which a DBS check is needed, for example). It should also include those with a duty to enforce the law and prosecute perpetrators, including Police, CPS, judges, civil servants, and yes MPs. Any evidence that suggests such people have knowingly allowed such crimes to unpunished should result in a criminal prosecution. (Assuming, of course, their colleagues do their duty and prosecute them)

  10. Mick T

    I can see how this could lead to vast over-reporting of the merest suspicion, deluging the “authorities” with an ocean of compaints, the vast majority of them spurious and many arising out of pure spite and ill-will. The genuine and worst cases would be buried and lost in all the noise. This would be an absolute gift for our paedo-infested Establishment so I’ll not be the least surprised to see something like this brought in.

  11. BarrieJ

    Any normal, well adjusted human being from any ethnic group would feel compassion for and empathy with any child or vulnerable adult, the fact that parliament has for at least the last forty years sanctioned the abuse of individuals from these groups, should tell us all we need to know about them.

    The government is not our friend, neither is it our protector.

  12. nuggy

    MICK T i think your spot on mandatory reporting will make things worse once they have investigated every spurious report there wont be time or money to investigate credible ones