UK Liberty

Another terrographer story

The Evening Standard:

A BBC photographer was stopped by police on suspicion of being a terrorist as he took pictures outside Tate Modern.

Jeff Overs, 48, was photographing sunset over St Paul’s Cathedral when a policewoman, with a community support officer, told him she was “stopping people who were taking photographs, as a counter-terrorism measure” and demanded his name, address and date of birth. …

Seriously, this is stupid and wrong.

Another flaw in the ISA

Posted in control freakery, database state, relates to ordinary people, stupid by ukliberty on November 27, 2009

Nursery World (didn’t see this in the nationals):

The Government’s controversial Vetting and Barring scheme has come under fire again after it emerged that nannies employed directly by parents will not be required to register.

… nannies are exempt from the scheme if their employment is deemed to be a ‘private arrangement’ with the family that they work for, raising fears that parents may unknowingly hire individuals that pose a threat to their children.

A spokesperson from the Department for Children, Schools and Families told Nursery World,

“If the nanny is supplied by an agency, then it will be the agency’s duty to check the nanny’s ISA registration before supplying the individual to the parents. If, however, the nanny is employed directly by the parents, with no agency involved, then there is no duty on the parent to check ISA registration and there is no duty on the nanny to be ISA-registered. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act was deliberately crafted in this way, so as not to intrude on private arrangements made by parents.”

There you have it: in the topsy-turvy world of child protection,  an arrangement made with an agency isn’t considered ‘private’.

Never mind.  As my correspondent writes, whether you are against the ISA because it is illiberal (me) or support it because you think it will protect children, surely this is a another flaw in the system.

Also, as the article points out, will it mean the children of the less well-off are made more vulnerable than those of the more well-off?  Presumably this will increase the cost of employing an agency nanny, motivating the less well off to seek a ‘private arrangement’.

It all seems a bit pointless though, doesn’t it?  Seeing as would-be parents aren’t going to be checked under the Vetting and Barring scheme.

And, on that note, see this.