Saturday, 26 September 2009

Terminology Creep

That this should all have come about by appallingly drawn-up illiberal Labour legislation is no surprise.

Two working mothers have been banned from looking after each other's toddlers because they are not registered childminders. The close friends' private arrangement had let them both return to part-time jobs at the same company.

However, a whistleblower reported them to the education watchdog Ofsted and it found their informal deal broke the law.

An Ofsted spokesman confirmed it had been called in after a complaint.

Yes. A single complaint and the wheels have not only to come off, they must also be dismantled to their component parts, never to be reassembled.

Again, nothing even mildly eyebrow-raising under Labour's watch. The rules in question are part of a shit law, as with a huge proportion of the 3,000+ that have been instigated since 1997, and the fact that Ofsted have sprung into action to deny entirely innocent mothers the economic chance to work, instead of relying on the state, is also not anything we haven't seen before. Labour enjoy paying the population to do nothing worthwhile, much as they enjoy dictating to the population what they can and can't do.

No. What is worrying about this report (it is the Daily Mail, but are you certain this isn't going to catch on?) is the use of the term 'whistleblower'.

A whistleblower should be a positive description of a selfless person who exposes misdoing for the common good, often at huge personal risk to themselves. Not, and I repeat not, anything like the 'anonymous complainant', of which this is an example, who is a vindictive cunt deserving only of being ostracised by polite society.

I have written about the sinister advance of these rancid pond-lives before.

Add in the fact that this is no doubt another instance of the 'anonymous complainant' setting the whole comprehensive waste of time, effort, and money in motion, and we have an archetypal snapshot of a miserablist nation jam-packed full of odious, self-important, unthinking fuckknuckles.

More than once, in fact.

It is heart-breaking to see so many anal and selfish Britons gutting each other over matters which really shouldn't bother them.

The anonymous complainant has been incubated and nurtured by Labour, almost as if they were the product of their own loins. Their every cuntish, spiteful whinge is positively encouraged with every new snitch-line that Labour unveil for the benefit of nasty cowardly curtain-twitchers everywhere, including elected ones.

In the society which Labour have created, an anonymous phone call can destroy a life/career/business either temporarily or permanently without any potential repercussions for the spurious or spiteful accuser.

It is entirely correct to keep the identity of a true whistleblower secret so that their evidence may be scrutinised properly.

However, the anonymous complainant, such as in this case, are a completely different matter. Make them give their name and address, with a warning that if their complaint is proven to be spurious and/or wastes resources they must suffer the consequences, and watch society become more tolerant and respectful of the lives of others in a very short space of time.


Barking Spider said...

Who needs council snoopers when you've got whistleblowers like that?! I wonder if he/she feels proud to have done the Country such a service?! Just another devious/deviant lefty, methinks.

Anonymous said...

Of course the informers aren't whistleblowers in the usual meaning of the word but journalists have to sell copy and they know what words catch the attention.

The vindictive and spiteful actions of a certain type of person is not new and it is not 'lefty'. That type was brilliantly characterised in Dad's Army as 'Mr Hodges'. Jobsworth: simply cannot bear to see anyone 'get away' with anything. I guess that they aren't particularly thin on the ground, either. But it is certainly true that Labour's New Order gives them a whole lot more scope.

WV: crock (an interesting word as it can refer to something useless and annoying, or else a hoard of treasure).

Junican said...

I'll bet a pound to a penny that the 'law' under which these two mothers are being castigated was not in the Act of Parliament which was passed by Parliament. I'll bet that it was in the REGULATIONS which the appropriate Minister concocted, which were not scrutinised by Parliament.

This is what has happened with the Baroness Scotland. SHE concocted the regulations and she has failed to comply with the regulations that she concocted - that is why she must resign.

The same thing happened with the Smoking Ban. Parliament did not define 'a public, substantially enclosed place' - Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Health, did. That is why we people who enjoy tobacco cannot have decent shelter from the elements outside pubs.

What is really important about this event is that the law (the regulations) are WRONG and must be amended forthwith.

woman on a raft said...

Ah, but of course, it isn't spurious once the definition 'reward' is used to include 'mutual exchange of service for mutual benefit'.

It's an intriguing thought: who is the snitch? You have to have a real knife to someone to be bothered to go find out who to complain to and in that detail, so it isn't a general bitch - it's somebody who knows at least one of them very well, and hates their guts.

Another childminder. Unlikely. They wouldn't generally be bothered as it isn't of economic consequence to them.

Neighbour with whom one has a strained relationship. Possible, but they would have to know the details of the childcare and be aware of this avenue of complaint.

Someone at work. Possible; it is a neat way of getting back at a pair who perhaps were given jobshare when it was denied to somebody else. Risky, though, if the management find out you've put them to inconvenience. People at work are often au fait with childminding regulations as they have to be for their own arrangements.

Grandparents. "Who does she think she is, letting a stranger look after our grand child". Likely, but depends on them knowing the details of the childcare arrangements and the regulations.

Ex-partner. Spite is a great motivator, especially if the reciprocal childcare is disapproved of.

Current partner. An idea which would be absurd, but consider that some cultures may not approve of women going back to work after having children. This gives them an entirely legal way to try to bugger-up somebody else's life on spurious grounds of child protection.

Stand by for a follow-up chapter in this poisonous soap-opera. Yell loudly enough and the snitch will soon step forward to "tell their story" and how they were only doing it for the cheeellldren.

Incidentally, Junican is completely right. This comes about following re-definitions which only came in to force in September 2008.

woman on a raft said...

Also incidentally, the quickest way round this is to not offer childminding in one's own home, but to look after the child in the child's own home as a day-nanny.

The regulations do not apply to private nannying arrangements

For these two women, it's a good way of going about things. They take it in turns to be nanny. Either arrange a hand-over rendezvous for the child that day, or the person being nanny goes to the worker's house. Reading the regulations in detail it does not preclude nanny then going back to her home with the child for up to two hours as part of the ordinary duties of a nanny, which might well include taking a child on a trip and would not bring her within the definition of childminder.

Another way to do this might be for the worker to drop their child off with the nanny, who then, within two hours, takes the child back to its own house and offers the rest of the care in the child's own home.

JuliaM said...

"The regulations do not apply to private nannying arrangements"

'Yet', no doubt...