From the comments to a recent post:
"Mark - you will have noticed the delicious irony this morning that the two women involved are police officers.
According to Ofsted it is not safe or legal to leave your child with a police officer unless they've had separate registration and validation. The women are complaining that they thought that as they knew each other, they could just disregard the Childcare Act 2006 and the 2008 amendments.
I may wet myself laughing. Police complaining that the rules apply to them. Outrageous.
I have revised my "who dobbed them in" plan to include narked members of the public who may have come in to professional contact with them. On the plus side, Ofsted have admitted that so long as childcare takes place in the child's own home, the whole issue goes away.
Are the women really so thick that they didn't read the act and amendments, which means that the arrangement has only been within the definition of 'reward' since September 2008?"
Glorious. It's a pity that childminding-without-a-licence isn't an arrestable offence, that would have been fun.
Crowds and Warnings
1 hour ago
10 comments:
Off-topic, but! I saw this and thought of you...
On topic .. .. ..
HaHAHAHAhAHahahaha!!!
I'd not thought about that angle of the implications for this story. Cheers!
So does this mean that when the police come to arrest me for sedition, I can refuse to allow them to take me away until they provide the CRB check that allows them to look after my child whilst I'm being arrested? ditto the SS
Heem....
And is this tax evasion as well as if they have paid each other a sum of money at commercial rate, then the income would be fully taxable ?
Otherwise, even if it has been in kind, the service provided would still be taxable ?
Haha...crazy country.
Obo, thanks, that is an excellent article.
CFF, they could have gone one better and have Ms A arrest Ms B's day off and the next day have Ms B arrest Ms A.
Anon 1, in principle yes, but they will just deem you an unsuitable parent and hand your kids over to local "child protection agency". Who will dump them with a suicide bomber, presumably.
Anon 2, again, barter exchanges in the course of business are taxable, but query whether this was in the course of business.
On the ball as usual
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2095&Itemid=81
VFTS, life copies satire as ever. Some years ago, I was in the queue at Homebase wanting to buy some long screws to fix a wall socket, and they told the lady in front of me that they weren't allowed to sell her a replacement-switch-typ-thingy for a bedside light as she wasn't a qualified electrician.
Hi Mark
If OFSTED deemed they are doing this for a financial reward, there probably is a profit motif there then....
Also, if they do register (as OFSTED thing they should have all along), then as a registered child minder, won't be looking after a children then ecomes a trade then...
You can see how crazy things can become...
Anon2
Are the women really so thick that they didn't read the act and amendments
No one can possibly read all of the acts that might affect oneself. This is part of the modern problem of too many laws being passed. The law needs to be simple so that people can comply.
I'm reminded that in the US the Senate (maybe Congree) has twice passed (or tried to pass) legislation that was not available for reading at the time. We expect our Parliament to review legislation that has been passed by Europe. I sincerely doubt that even half the MPs actually read such Acts. If the legislators don't read laws then why on earth would the public who are expected to abide by them.
delicious irony that Agents of the Snooper Nanny State have been hoist by Labours petard.
In a similar vein ( ? ), a teacher is reported to have bought a ham sandwich in a shop and was then refused help to open a brown sauce sachet by the assistant " in case he dropped the wrapper into the sandwich and the customer choked to death on it "
Where will it end ?
Post a Comment