Do as you're told ... or else

[Professur]

This is a special thread for news articles pertaining to the 'nanny state' and the power wielded thereby. Feel free to take your comments on the articles posted here to your own thread on the same subject.

England's Children's Minister wants a review of the case of two police officers told they were breaking the law, caring for each other's children.

Ofsted said the arrangement contravened the Childcare Act because it lasted for longer than two hours a day, and constituted receiving "a reward".

It said the women would have to be registered as childminders.

Minister Vernon Coaker said his department was talking to Ofsted about this particular case.

The two detective constables, Leanne Shepherd, from Milton Keynes, and Lucy Jarrett, from Buckingham, told the BBC how Ofsted insisted they end their arrangement.

'Shocked'

Ms Shepherd, who serves with Thames Valley Police, recalled: "A lady came to the front door and she identified herself as being from Ofsted. She said a complaint had been made that I was illegally childminding.

"I was just shocked - I thought they were a bit confused about the arrangement between us.

"So I invited her in and told her situation - the arrangement between Lucy and I - and I was shocked when she told me I was breaking the law."


Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward

Babysitter or childminder?

Ms Jarrett added: "Our children were never in any harm, they were never in any danger.

"To think that they would waste their time and effort on innocent people who are trying to provide for their families by returning to the workplace... Surely their time and effort would be better placed elsewhere."

Thames Valley Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said the pair had its "full support".

Secretary Andy Viney said: "Both of them are experienced professional officers.

"They just want to return to work after having children and have found that the system is working totally against them.

"They've been threatened with prosecution by Ofsted if they continue doing this."

An Ofsted spokesman said it applied regulations found in the Childcare Act 2006, but was currently discussing the interpretation of the word "reward" with the department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF).

"Reward is not just a case of money changing hands. The supply of services or goods and, in some circumstances, reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward.


"Generally, mothers who look after each other's children are not providing childminding for which registration is required, as exemptions apply to them, for example because the care is for less than two hours or it takes place on less than 14 days in a year.

"Where such arrangements are regular and for longer periods, then registration is usually required."

Close relatives of children, such as grandparents, siblings, aunts or uncles, were exempt from the rules, he added.

But Michelle Elliott, director of the children's charity Kidscape, told the BBC's Breakfast programme that the decision defied common sense and would impose extra childcare costs on families.

She added: "These children were looked after in a secure environment with people that they knew.

"There must be thousands of people out there who are doing the same thing who are now going to think: 'Do I have to spend £300 a week or whatever it is?'"


Minister for Children, Schools and Families Vernon Coaker insisted the Childcare Act 2006 was in place "to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all children" but the government needed to make sure it did not "penalise hard-working families".

"My department is speaking to Ofsted about the interpretation of the word 'reward' in this particular case," he said.

A petition to scrap the rules governing reciprocal child care on the Number 10 website had gathered more than 5,300 signatures by 0530 BST on Monday.

Anyone required to register to become a childminder would also have to undergo a criminal records check.

source

not even if you're a police officer.

 

[MrBishop]

The anti-nanny nanny state

 

[Cerise]

State orders Middleville mom to stop watching friends' children

MIDDLEVILLE — A mother who helps neighbors in the morning by watching their children for a short time before the bus comes has been told she’s breaking the law.

Lisa Snyder’s house is by the corner bus stop on Thornbird Drive just outside Middleville. Two of her friends who need to leave for work bring their children to her home in the morning before the bus arrives to take them to Thornapple Kellogg schools.

Snyder said she doesn’t think she’s doing anything wrong, but she was notified by the Michigan Department of Human Services that she has to stop watching the children because her home is not a licensed day-care facility.

Snyder said she’s not charging her friends money to watch the children. She said she watches the 5-year-old and 7-year-old from two families for less than an hour.

“It’s crazy. I’m just helping out a couple of friends,” said Snyder.

Snyder said she thinks that DHS was notified by a neighbor who thought Snyder was running a day-care facility. She said she tried to explain her situation to the DHS worker who sent her a letter, but the woman didn’t want to hear it.

State Rep. Brian Calley, R-Portland, was so outraged when he heard DHS was involved that he proposed legislation to exempt families from state day-care rules when they are caring for friends’ children.

“I actually had a hard time believing this outrageous case until I called DHS, and they not only confirmed it but refused to reconsider when I explained the situation,” Calley said in a news release.

The children’s parents must leave for work in the morning before the school bus arrives so the Middleville family agreed to watch the children for a short period of time each day until they got on the bus. Under current state law, Public Act 116, Michigan homes must be licensed if the residents watch children who are not related on an ongoing basis, no matter the duration.

“This is a shocking case of government bureaucracy run amok,” Calley said. “At a time when the state is being forced to cut health-care programs and services to children, it’s outrageous that the state has decided to pursue an issue like illegal baby-sitting.”

Beyond crazy.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Beyond crazy.

Yes, I'd agree that you are! Thank you for that commander obvious!

 

[MrBishop]

The big question in cases like these isn't 'why is the gvt sticking their noses in here', but rather... "Who complained"

It's not like these services go door to door making sure that no illegal babysitting services are going on... someone blew a whistle and made enough noise so that someone at these offices said "Enough" and went to see what all the hub-bub was about.

 

[catocom]

Snyder said she thinks that DHS was notified by a neighbor who thought Snyder was running a day-care facility. She said she tried to explain her situation to the DHS worker who sent her a letter, but the woman didn’t want to hear it.

I'd have to hear the opposing person's argument, that was on the other line,
and maybe tapes if any..., before judging. myself

 

[Professur]

A shopper was asked for proof of age when she tried to buy a packet of teaspoons from a supermarket.

Emma Sheppard was forbidden to buy the cutlery unless she showed identification to a shop assistant at her local Tesco.

Till operators at the store in Evesham, Worcs, wouldn't sell the pack of five teaspoons on Monday night as part of their 'Think 25' scheme, which demands ID from people who look under 25 when buying certain goods.


Stunned: Emma Sheppard wasn't carrying ID when she was challenged in Tesco as she didn't think she would need to prove her age to buy spoons

Emma, 21, from Malvern, had spend around £70 on a food shop with her partner John, 20, when the female checkout assistant asked her for identification, before holding up the offending teaspoons.

Emma, a housewife, said: 'When the assistant asked me for ID I thought John had sneakily put some booze in the trolley, but then when she held up a pack of spoons we looked at her like she was an idiot.

'We were both a bit taken aback really - what are you going to do with a packet of spoons that means you need ID to buy them? In this crazy world we live in, you have to be over 18 to buy teaspoons it seems.



'I'm 21, I would have understood the need to ID me if it was alcohol, but it wasn't. It was teaspoons I need to stir my cup of coffee in the morning.

'I didn't have my ID on me as I was only doing my weekly food shop and was not buying any alcohol. We couldn't get the spoons in the end, and I rather angrily threw my shopping in the trolley, breaking my eggs.

'I felt like saying "excuse me while I go on a mad rampage around Evesham with teaspoons"'.

Tesco sell teaspoons for as little as 57p for their 'Value' pack of five.

A Tesco spokesperson said: 'Some utensils, such as knifes, will carry a 'Think 25' alert when scanned through the checkout. There is an element of common sense involved and this was a mistake, for which we are sorry.'

source

 

[MrBishop]

Perhaps someone added it because teaspoons can be used to cook crack

Another fine example of the low-CS level of store clerks sometimes.

 

[paul_valaru]

source

so she CAN have ice cream, but not butter her bread.

 

[Professur]

Farmer fined for ignoring cow's 'psychological needs'

Bovine kept in dark

By Lester Haines • Get more from this author

Posted in Biology, 14th October 2009 14:40 GMT


A West Yorks farmer has been slapped with a £150 fine for keeping a cow in a darkened barn and therefore failing to 'meet the psychological needs' of the bovine.

Ronald Norcliffe, 65, was nabbed under the Animal Welfare Act in August 2008 when operatives from Kirklees Environmental Health department and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) visited his Scammonden farm on a tuberculosis test mission.

According to the Telegraph, they asked Norcliffe where he intended to keep his the cow and its calf in winter. He indicated a barn under his house, but was informed it was "unsuitable because it had little natural light, no electric lights and the doors were kept closed".

A Defra vet served an improvement notice, and Norcliffe, who has no electricity in his own abode, said he'd run some lights from a generator. However, during two further inspections the lights "were not switched on".

Cue a short break from farming for Norcliffe to appear before Huddersfield magistrates. Bob Carr, defending, was evidently less than impressed with the prosecution. He ridiculed: "I don't know what the psychological or ethological needs of these cows are and I'm sure Mr Norcliffe doesn't either.

"I still have no idea how much lighting is appropriate for a cow - and this man, who has had 30 years of farming experience and is keeping these animals healthy, is none the wiser. In my respectful submission this didn't do any harm whatsoever."

Magistrates disagreed, and we suspect Norcliffe is now balancing the cost of a few gallons of petrol and a light bulb against the aforementioned £150 fine, £50 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

And before you lot go off on one about how the country's gone completely bonkers, a Kirklees Council spokesman clarified that this was the first Animal Welfare Act prosecution it had brought in nine years.

He elaborated: "Our animal health and welfare officers paid several visits to Mr Norcliffe and worked hard to find simple, low-cost solutions - some as simple as cleaning windows and trimming back bushes obscuring the windows which could have been easily introduced. We offered help and advice, but Mr Norcliffe failed to improve conditions for his livestock." ®

source

Note: HE doesn't have electric lights in his house, bu the cow needs them.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Well I'd give you an opinion, but I am sure it would be unacceptable to someone so I decline to comment....