The government will move to ban people from appealing if their working with children check is denied, after media reports highlighting cases where sex offenders and other criminals had been granted the checks on appeal.

So the article only seems to raise these two cases, and it’s not clear to me that either of these two people hurt any kids after appealing their check.

Is it just me or is this cooked? The right to appeal decisions seems fundamental to help reduce malfunctions or biases in a system. If the appeals process is too lax (doesn’t seem like it?) then strength it sure but wtf is this move?

  • rowinofwin@aussie.zoneEnglish
    0·
    2 天前

    I work in industry. I have met people who are also in industry and give me the massive creeps. I think the current process is about making sure the most obvious cases are screened out, so if you have a criminal record or workplace reportable incident. It is not about making sure kids are never harmed, it is about the low hanging fruit.

    In my opinion it is not enough. There absolutely should be an appeal process, but also the process for the initial application should be more stringent.

    I also think people such as myself, a mid 30s male, should not be considered safe by default. While I know I would never harm a child there is no real way to screen out someone who would without accidentally screening out me too.

    Statistically women are the outlier offenders, around 5% or less for known sexual abuse. It could be that the number is a little more even or less even based on reporting gaps, but I think it is fairly clearly not close to even. For some reason men seem to be fairly vile towards those they are supposed to care for. We need to fix men by fixing our culture and in the interim, maybe we need to consider whether current men are fit for this industry.

    • Taleya@aussie.zoneEnglish
      0·
      24 小时前

      Statistically, women are more likely to just straight up kill kids so there goes your harm mitigation theory.

          • Fuse Views@infosec.exchange
            0·
            18 小时前

            @Taleya

            Thanks.

            However, that report relates to ‘filicide’, and this thread is discussing ‘working with children’.

            Are you aware of any studies that show that women (who are NOT the mother of a child victim) “are more likely to just straight up kill kids”.

            The report you provided seems related to ‘domestic violence’, and unrelated to the ‘child care’ sector.

            • Taleya@aussie.zoneEnglish
              0·
              16 小时前

              The original claims were not restricted to childcare, so i’m not playing move the goalposts.

              • Fuse Views@infosec.exchange
                0·
                16 小时前

                @Taleya

                I’ve not moved the goal posts.

                This thread relates to ‘working with children’ and policies regarding background checks of those who do.

                One toot read, in part, “Statistically women are the outlier offenders, around 5% or less for known sexual abuse.”

                You replied, “Statistically, women are more likely to just straight up kill kids so there goes your harm mitigation theory.”

                I asked for more information regarding your “statistics” and you provided a report related to ‘filicide’ in the context of ‘domestic violence’. This is outside the scope of any “working with children” checks.

                You wrote, “The original claims were not restricted to childcare…”

                I haven’t moved the goal posts at all.

                This isn’t a game. I am genuinely interested if you know of any statistical evidence that women, in a capacity for which they require a “working with children” background check, “are more likely to just straight up kill kids”.

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPEnglish
      0·
      2 天前

      What in the gender essentialist fuck? You cannot bar all men from jobs involving kids. You need a working with children check to run an extracurricular class, what are you smoking?