can a repair man let himself in?

Wee_Willy_Harris

clutton wrote: »

i have just had a closer look at the 3 links provided by franklee... the first two relate to the same case, and the last one does not say that the LL abused one of his tenants......

CRB is a mass hysteria thing... it did not stop young Jessica and her chum being killed by Ian at Sougham......

CRB in itself will not stop peedoes .... they are some of the most cunning and evil people on this planet as fas as i am concerned..

what WILL stop peedoes is parental responsibility...

do you know where your kids are
what they are watching on the tele and on the computer
have you met all their freinds and their parents

the fact that this one Plymouth case shows that these peedoes have been tracked down and found them guilty indicates that the systems which are in place do indeed work

I'm struggling to understand the point you are making here.

Ian Huntley was NOT CRB checked. Had he been so, his history of sexual offending would have been highlighted and his position of trust may have been denied. So, CRB MAY have saved those two young girls lives.

You give an example of how CRB checks may have stopped a "peedoe", than say that CRB won't stop peedoes.

As for parental responsibility and the old "do you know where your kids are?" argument...... The main responsibility of any parent is to ensure that there children are fed, watered and happy members of the society in which they develop. That means giving them the freedom they need, not keeping them under constant surveillance. You seem to be blaming everybody but the perpetrator. A bit like the girls in short skirts are asking to be raped argument.

I agree that CRB isn't the one pill cure for this thorny issue. But it can be a valuable tool to protect the vulnerable from those who would target them.

Taxi drivers have CRB checks. I don't see that the rationale for that developement is too far removed from the role of private landlords.

sonastin

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Ian Huntley was NOT CRB checked. Had he been so, his history of sexual offending would have been highlighted and his position of trust may have been denied. So, CRB MAY have saved those two young girls lives.

refusing him a CRB would have had no effect. His girlfriend would have still passed, she would have still worked at the girls' school, the girls would have still stopped by her house to say hello and he would still have been in the position to do what he did. The fact that he worked at a school was irrelevant to how he came to do what he did.

The intention behind CRB checks is laudable but I don't believe that they achieve that aim.

clutton_2

i have already described peedoes as some of the most evil people on this planet - of course i am blaming them......


""You seem to be blaming everybody but the perpetrator""


not at all... i think i meant that the widespread use of CRB checks has become acceptable in situations where the risk is so small as to be almost negligible.. like in my art college class for example....

supervising children, especially on the web, is a Seriously important part of parental care....

Taxi drivers are in a prime positoin of being able to abduct anyone during 8 hours a day 5 days a week........

landlords are virtually never alone with their tgenants children

the two risks are incomparable....

Wee_Willy_Harris

sonastin wrote: »

refusing him a CRB would have had no effect. His girlfriend would have still passed, she would have still worked at the girls' school, the girls would have still stopped by her house to say hello and he would still have been in the position to do what he did. The fact that he worked at a school was irrelevant to how he came to do what he did.

The intention behind CRB checks is laudable but I don't believe that they achieve that aim.

Pure speculation. It could as easily be argued that the girls trusted him enough to enter the house as he worked at a school and was, as a result, a trusted figure within the community. That's why I used the word "may" (twice, once in capitol letters) in my earlier post.

Wee_Willy_Harris

clutton wrote: »

i have already described peedoes as some of the most evil people on this planet - of course i am blaming them......


""You seem to be blaming everybody but the perpetrator""


not at all... i think i meant that the widespread use of CRB checks has become acceptable in situations where the risk is so small as to be almost negligible.. like in my art college class for example....

supervising children, especially on the web, is a Seriously important part of parental care....

Taxi drivers are in a prime positoin of being able to abduct anyone during 8 hours a day 5 days a week........

landlords are virtually never alone with their tgenants children

the two risks are incomparable....

Landlords have home addresses, are aware of family types occupying those addresses and, usually, even have keys to the front door. In a number of cases, as you have previously posted, LLs make arrangements to call personally to collect rent etc, so would even be an accepted visitor to the address.

Obviously, in all the above, good, honest LLs will not abuse that position. But, to use your own terminology, "the most cunning and evil people on this planet" as far as you are concerned, may decide to use it for their own ends.

clutton_2

"""the most cunning and evil people on this planet" as far as you are concerned, may decide to use it for their own ends. ""


and in spite of your and Franklees googling attempts to find such wicked landlords neither of you has found even one conviction in the uk .....

risks are part of life....

a few years back there were 2 documentaries on the tele in the same week..

one showed the local education authority employing men to remove conkers from trees near schools in case children injured themselves on them


the second showed 8 years old Tibetan children galloping bareback through the plains of the Himalayas.....

we have swaddled our society in a cloak of fear .. and now we are all paying the price...

BitterAndTwisted

I expect the conkers-tidying was done more out of fear of litigation by hysterical parents than a concern that thousands of kids might have risked a minor bump on the bonce one in a blue moon. Actually, I believe I know a few kids who might actually benefit from one but that's another story.

I'm quite enjoying this thread going seriously off-topic as it's making for an interesting read. Please carry on

Wee_Willy_Harris

clutton wrote: »

and in spite of your and Franklees googling attempts to find such wicked landlords neither of you has found even one conviction in the uk .....

I have made mention of Christie and the Wests. Both landlords who attacked their tenants. Is that not enough to be going on with? Of course, Scotland, ever progressive, DOES have a registration scheme....

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/banned-slum-landlord-put-out-of-business-1.962707

And Help The Agred seem concerned as well.....

http://policy.helptheaged.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/ED46F66A-6B10-4D46-943A-29B53FEFCDD0/0/harassment_and_abuse.pdf

But if you're happy to be tarred with the same brush as the LLs who make your profession appear to be so.... wel.... unprofessional, so be it. Frankly, I'd have thought you would welcome any approach that weeds out those not fit to be a LL.

G51shopaholic

Bottom line here - did Agent or Landlord try and contact you?

If they didn't - then it's breaking and entering - simple.

If it was an emergency then they have the right to enter, but must have tried to contact you for access 1st - ie mobile phone or as a last resort place of employment.

Wee_Willy_Harris

G51shopaholic wrote: »

Bottom line here - did Agent or Landlord try and contact you?

If they didn't - then it's breaking and entering - simple.

If it was an emergency then they have the right to enter, but must have tried to contact you for access 1st - ie mobile phone or as a last resort place of employment.

Do they HAVE to try and contact you first?

So, they walk past the house and happen to see the front door open and one of the tenants lying face-down in the hall... an emergency, I'm sure you will agree.... Obvioulsy, they call the emergency services and, while waiting outside the gate, they don't assist or try to determine if any first aid could be administered... oh no... instead they stand and make any number of phone calls to try and track down one of the other tenants.

Don't be so daft.