An interesting confluence
Only trained, vetted and properly equipped candidates need apply!
Here’s a heart-warming tale for you:
Craig Hodge, a father-of-three, spent five weeks helping pupils at his own children’s school cross a busy road to get to classes.
He took on the role voluntarily with the full backing of teachers and other parents when their regular lollipop man was signed off on extended sick leave.
What a kind man! Surely only good karma will flow from this?
But now Mr Hodge, 38, a youth football coach, has been told to stop after the council and police said it was illegal because he had not been ”checked, vetted and trained”.
Was he on the sex offenders’ register?
Mr Hodge, who has already been checked by the Criminal Records Bureau, said the situation is ”ridiculous” because the order means children now cross the road twice a day unaided.
Right. So he’s not a known pervert, he’s passed police checks and the job entails looking for a gap in the traffic and then holding out a sign on a pole. I’m struggling to see what the problem is. In fact, even if he hadn’t been CRB checked, I wouldn’t really understand what the problem is, because even if he was a pederast, he’d hardly be likely to molest children out in rush hour traffic. I think someone would notice, surely?
Mr Hodge’s children Broghan, nine, Trafford, six and Ebony, five, are all pupils at the school.
But he was approached by police earlier this week and officers told him he would no longer be able to carry out the role.
Mr Hodge added: ”I had to get into the police car. She was very nice to me, but she explained it had all come from the council, and that I had to stop it because I was acting illegally.
It’s illegal to be a lollipop man on a volunteer basis?
Well, it seems that it is.
But lest you think that this is “just” down to over-zealous police or busybody councillors, rest assured that it is even better than that!
Mr Wright [the headmaster of the school concerned] has now sent a letter sent to all parents explaining that someone had phoned the council to report Mr Hodge for his actions.
”We have been informed that someone has phoned to report Mr Hodge for helping the children across the main Totnes Road and he has been forced to stop acting as a crossing patrol,” he wrote.
Dear me! Someone actually phoned the council to report someone for volunteering to help children across the road. And the council’s reaction is a classic response in the genre, of course!
A spokesman for Torbay Council said: ”Road safety is of paramount importance, but while we fully support all schools in their efforts to ensure the safety of pupils and to help us recruit relief patrols, we have a duty to follow all the procedures.
In other words, road safety is not of paramount importance – following procedures blindly is much more important.
Every time I read one of these tales, my soul withers slightly. Nobody comes out of this with any kind of dignity. The “concerned complainant” should hang his head in shame. The council have uttered the mating call of jobsworths everywhere and should really have told the complainant to shut up or go do a better job of it himself. The police should have told the council that volunteering to perform a valuable service to the community is not a crime and if they were that bothered about it, they should either provide a lollipop man or go away.
It is difficult to find hope for our future when faced with such spite, cravenness and stupidity.
-
1
December 5, 2009 at 09:13 -
What law exactly forbids crossing the road while wearing a hivis jacket and carrying a pole?
-
2
December 5, 2009 at 10:18 -
Thadders old bean
My mantra re this one remains the same: blanket security is merely a security blanket. Those in charge don’t care if it works – only that something has been seen to be done.
For my sins, I’ve got A-level in this V&B drivel. I’ve examined three social care bodies and interviewed some dozen or more people who now have to be V&B’d. The results are clear (1) Most of the paedophiles are already in the system; and (2) the straight people involved say the form they’re using couldn’t catch a dead fish let alone a cunning pederast.
All across Britain, people are dropping out of social care and associated voluntary school work because of this nonsense. And when the whole system goes beyond current crisis-point and into China syndrome, the Elite still won’t get it. After all,there aren’t any perverts in the Zil lane…except for Lord Fondlebum of Boy.
As for busybodies, well….the Stasi couldn’t have survived without them. Although of course, with their shiny new £13 billion surveillance toy, GCHQ has effectively rendered busybodies redundant. So maybe that’s something to be glad about.
YMx
PS sorry for the vulgar commercial here, but you could do worse than go to not born yesterday and read today’s lead ‘The Police: not so much a blue line as a black hole’. -
3
December 5, 2009 at 10:28 -
This is security theatre. Procedures and checks for the sake of them without much care for whether they work or not or trample over people or not.
The CRB won’t stop first offenders or offenders not known to the system.
-
4
December 5, 2009 at 12:07 -
When I was a lad when the ’school crossing patrol’ man or lady was off sick a POLICE officer did the job.
Nowadays they are all to busy writing up reports that no-one ever reads.
Another example of the Police being withdrawn from interacting with the public they are meant to serve.
I sincerely hope the phone caller is outed. -
5
December 5, 2009 at 12:58 -
6
December 5, 2009 at 13:34 -
At no point in this article does anyone from the council or Police explain why it is illegal.
“A spokesman for Torbay Council said: ”Road safety is of paramount importance, but while we fully support all schools in their efforts to ensure the safety of pupils and to help us recruit relief patrols, we have a duty to follow all the procedures.”
The procedures only apply to their lollipop men and women. Mr. Hodge is not one of them.
-
7
December 5, 2009 at 16:50 -
I think we might be a culture about to find an alternative use for lampposts, once the lights go out because Zanu Label haven’t paid the bill.
What we need in Britain is not so much targets as target practice. Something like a video game where Tessa Jowell flies in from top right and then Straw pops up from bottom left. We must all prepare for the day when Blairs go to prison and Kellys are found to have been unlawfully killed.
And be carefulnot to hold our breath.
YM x -
8
December 5, 2009 at 18:15 -
Insurance. It boils down to that, plain and simple.
If someone gets knocked down, a no win no fee lawyer will be onto the council like a ton of bricks.
Having an ‘untrained’ (read uninsured by the council) bod on duty and they’ll get hung out to dry (financially)
That’s all they care about – Pounds, shillings and pence.
The insurance companies never like to pay out, so insist on such conditions no doubt.
-
9
December 6, 2009 at 10:44 -
Bobby Boy,
If the lollipop man isn’t a council provided one the council surely isn’t liable.
The council does not appear to have a statutory duty to provide lollipop men – the lack of one is why Mr. Hodge stepped in. It was too much for the council that someone did a job they see as theirs, for free, and with the right intent. That could not be allowed.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }