NO2ID

You are right about the NSPCC openly supporting contact point.

I've openly persuading anyone and everyone to stop NSPCC direct debits.

You can't. The Children Act 2004 specifically says that the information sharing it enables overrides any rule of common or statute law to the contrary. Data protection does not apply, confidentiality does not apply, Article 8 "privacy" rights under the Human Rights Act do not apply, nor does any limitation in the powers under which the information is obtained in the first place.

The 'shielding' about which there has been so much fuss is a privilege in the gift of the local authority, not a right.

Couldn't the refusal of 'Shielding' if other are shielded be deemed distrimination and therefore contrary to the HR Act?

No. Because (1) discrimination is not contrary to the Human Rights Act, only discrimination in the exercise of the rights and freedoms in it on grounds of status, so they can readily discriminate in the availability of the rights provided it is on grounds of individual circumstance, and (2) any breach of rights involved would arise from the sharing, which may happen regardless of HRA.

This is IMHO the best thread on this forum, a balanced debate.

There are two things I would like to contribute.

Firstly for anyone who does not work in the "child protection" area it is difficult for them to imagine the real size of the problem. I know I sound lke an evangelist here but believe me you can have no conception of what happens to some children at all strata in great Britain.

Secondly, I am staggered by the way in which everyone focusses on ContactPoint when your children's data (far more than will be stored on CP) is scattered across many un-regulated home made databases knocked up by self taught experts who run all the clubs, societies and yes in many cases schools. It is likely that this data is being collected by your local paedophile who sadly is sitting comfortably in the local swimming club, who sits next to you in the local and plays a round of golf with you on Saturday. Yes the threat is very real as any casual research in your local newspaper will show. Who knows to whom the data is being passed.

Of course we are all suspicious of big Govt databases, who wouldn't be given their track record. I really do understand why some people would suggest that only children at risk should be on the system but then I would offer the following. Paedophiles when convicted have on average abused 300 times the one they were nicked for was the one we found out about about.

So what do you propose should be done about those databases? And how would ContactPoint help?


Do you have a source for this statistic? And again, how would ContactPoint help?

From Sparky2 other posts, I think that they are the 'paedo behind every lampost' scaremongerer. Maybe they are a social worker or NSPCC sympathiser who seem to imply in those nauseating ads that any child who cries is abused.

Sparky - some of us have in depth knowledge of the Child protection area.
It is an utter shambles. You should be ashamed of your sectors performance. You are part of a systemic failure, and people in glass houses etc...

Many of us are aware of paedophile rings.
Many are operating as foster carers and in care homes.
50% of all child trafficking in the UK is operated from UK care homes - not a pleasant statistic is it?

As for your point about "us public" being scared of all the home made databases...
You dumbwit (I apologise to NO2ID but this twit is off the scale for stupidity).

Once contact point is brought it, it WILL be hacked and cracked by paedophiles. They are obsessive, beyond a normal persons comprehension. Who will not stop until they access contact point. They will PAY for hackers to break it. These guys are mad men. You don't give them nuclear weapons when they want sex with children.
Then heaven help the 11 million children at risk.

Did you know that they had PIE - Paedophile information network. They did "surveys" amongst themselves, what age of child do you like sex with? They preferred girls between the ages of 8 and 11 years old. So Sparky, **SHUT UP** We know. That's why many of us campaign AGAINST contact point.

You and your sort will have "joined up" the databases, so they can access millions instead of tens or hundreds.

Yes, they are sicko's. That's why you never "create" or catalogue the kind of information that contact point will. Unless you can protect the data. And you can't protect it. You can make it watertight, so don't create the database in the first place.

The children will live terrible lives, due to the bloody database called Contact point.

Hi Guest
Get your kicks being abusive on the net then?

I thought I was making some quite valid points but then I should have know better than mess with the die hard conspiracy nutters.

Just abusive on the net?

ta ta

Sparky....

If you link the data in a sports club, you'll have tens of children - and you cannot compare this to Contactpoint.

Contact Point is
1. Mandatory
2. Affects 11 million children, so any mistakes are catastrophic compared to losing say a ward of children's hospital patients. (Though this is terrible in itself).


You are not considering the sheer "Magnitude".


Some of us have indepth knowledge of how data is being misinterpreted by social workers.
And realise the huge challenges contact point will create for society.
The terrible cases we see, will be rolled out across the UK to all parents.

Do you not think we've run tests on the NHS spine - to find data and locate children.

Do you think we'll run tests on Contact Point - to locate adopted children?

What about DV cases?
Don't you think the shielding will fail as the LA (Local Authority) staff made a mistake?
Don't you think Police witness programmes will now be compromised.

And as for "conspiracy" nutter.
1. contact point is real.
2. The Times campaign is real.
3. The errors social workers are making are real.


Try considering the position of the Victims of social worker error, like Sally Clark or Angela Cannings.
Or are they also conspiracy theories?

Magnitude is the key to understanding contact point. If only one member of one state department is corrupted, then the system fails.

Hello all
this my first time, so please be patient if I get it wrong!
All the mutter regarding Contact Point is mis-informed and wrong. All the data regarding your children is already held on a variety of databases. If you have a child and recieve benefits, GP services, nursery, health visitor's and birth services, the details of your children is already recorded.
What is the big deal about combining all this in one place?
To those of you who have suggested that only children at risk should be included, PLEASE remember Jessica Chapman, and Holly Wells, and as a result of their deaths this system has come about.
I doubt that those poor children would ever have been considered "At Risk".

Hi, welcome to the forum!

Can you explain how ContactPoint would have helped Jessica and Holly?

Your understanding is wrong. Further and in particular there is no such thing as a common law "right" of privacy.

With reference to one of the posts above, I was not aware that there was a Times campaign against ContactPoint - any more details of this please? (I suppose I could do a websearch, but it's quite late, and somebody reading might have more direct information at hand.)

ContactPoint is the perfect example of putting all your eggs in one basket. Shouldn't child protection agencies be trying to protect these eggs, rather than putting as many as possible at risk?

No child will be shielded. Once the authorisation password that views the 'shielded' information has been either hacked or leaked, it will be circulated across the internet and anyone with access to the system could use it.

Another problem is also the function creep situation that data will be added about childrens' families that they will not have consented to, or be informed about once it's been put on, and it will stay there. This data may easily be erroneous. When the Social Services come knocking and take their children away for crimes that never happened, exaggerated claims, or the wrong Joe Smith, perhaps the situation may become clearer, but it's a bit late then.

This system is appallingly badly flawed. I don't see how people like Sparky can possibly defend it. It has no redeeming features, and many distressingly flimsy ones. Scrap it now!

Also, highlighting the 'shielded' children just flags up those that are the most vulnerable! This scheme makes it easier for paedophiles to isolate those children who are most susceptible to be preyed upon by them with this function! This system is insane and nobody with an awareness of IT security (and lack of it) could support it.

I am glad I am not the only one who thinks ContactPoint is the most offensive intrusion into children's and parents' lives as well as its motives and legality being highly dubious. I also think it is being implemented in a most disingenious way in its insistence that it is for the protection of children (implying that anyone against it must be a budding child abuser).
It is interesting that many children themselves are against it, particularly older ones, suspicious of the Government's motives. I think they are wiser than their elders in this. Some have even hinted that they would be even less likely to seek help, which surely defeats the purpose.
To me it is merely a continuation of Labour's mania for control and surveillance. They want to know everything about everybody, and they care little for individuals' rights and concerns about freedom and privacy. They care less for the legal framework in which we have lived for hundreds of years.
The case of poor little Victoria Climbie must be the most horrific and gut-wrenching example of evil on record. Thank God these cases are extremely rare. I find it hard to understand how so many people could not just use their eyes and common sense and failed to protect her.

GYW the point is that if someone claims there's abuse, that person will not be identified to you.

The same person could have made 50 such allegations, you will never know as they are protected.

The people being trained to add data to contact point are dentists, nursery assistants, plumbers, electricians, none of whom are medical and certainly with no expertise in spotting child abuse.

One mum had her child taken because she "missed" one dental appointment.

All of this is now recorded, and used by the multi disciplinary (plumbers united) teams who make the decision to adopt a child (often wrongly).

But as it's done in secret, there is no ability to bring in the experts to challenge the idiot social workers who make such allegations on the balance of probabilities.
If you're going to adopt a child, I think neglect or abuse must be proven, which is not the current standard.

At the moment all that's needed is heresay that you "may neglect" in the future. "may" is simply too remote a test to justify an adoption.

Who started this madness? The Prince of Darkess, Tony Blair - attached is a link to a BBC video, where's he's explaining his big brother police state child kidnap plans, as "you need to get in there before any abuse" and take the child at birth.

Hence mothers are fleeing the UK as Justice is failing them. (ref Fran Lyons, Angela Wileman, Nicky Webster, Sam Thomas).

This amounts to a WW2 secret underground that gets pregnant women OUT of the UK to safety.
And contact point is part and parcel of why these mothers flee the UK as Justice is failing.

Tony Blair - BBC Police State Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6xbKFlawOk

It is AN offensive intrusion, but by no means the worst. The whole Every Child Matters agenda, and CAF arising out of it, is far worse. The problem with ContactPoint is (in parallel with the Ntional Identity Register) it is designed to form a single universal index and cross-reference, making impossible escape from the oversight of all the other mechanisms of state management in existence and yet to be invented.

Sorry, but your understanding is wrong. Statute displaces common law. That is the rule, and - think about it - it would be impossible to have statute at all if it didn't. There is no explicit "right of right of privacy" in statute or at common law. And a common-law lawyer just hears such a thudding phrase and sees a husk devoid of content. A common law of privacy may be starting to develop, building on the statutory basis of the Human Rights Act; but common law doesn't proceed from abstract rights, rather from discerning legal principle in the facts of particular cases.

What one might be able to do is to use a Human Rights Act argument to try to limit the interpretation of the statute, but but the statute is deliberately drawn to try to avoid that, as is most modern legislation. That's a subtle way, seldom noticed by even the less know-nothing critics (and of course not at all by its fans), in which the Human Rights Act has been bad for the rule of law. It has encouraged scorched-earth drafting.

Someone on this thread mentioned PIE. This organization was gaining traction until their members were rumbled by angry mums and they were given a good handbagging in Red Lion Square (from memory?). The National Council of Civil Liberties had them as an affiliated organization... and who was high up in the NCCL at the time? Step forward 'you know where you can find me' Hattie and her hubbie 'I passed the all women shortlist' Wacko-Jacko.

We know ContactPoint is being setup so that child abusers can get easier 'contact' with children. They did this in the Orkneys where they battered down doors in the middle of the night and took children away from innocent parents who they falsely accused of witchcraft. They did it in Cleveland en mass so that unhinged social workers could sexually abuse babies and children with crazed anal-dilation tests. The judge who ran the public white-wash enquiry into Cleveland was made head of the family courts (can't remember her name) after the 'state-not-to-blame' coverup report was published. There is a very long list of these state abusers.

So what to do about the data? My idea is to give them some. We should assume that our address is where these state child abusers will want to come and bash down the door, so make sure this is a door where you do not live. Likewise with childrens names, just change them like confetti. Don't give recent names of doctors. In summary make sure everything is wrong. Then send ContactAndAbuseYourChildPoint a data STOP under the DPA for good measure (stop processing the records because of inaccuracies).