Because they were up to no good(of a different kind) and don't want to come forward.I agree, but why wouldn't they have been cleared by now?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because they were up to no good(of a different kind) and don't want to come forward.I agree, but why wouldn't they have been cleared by now?
Is it me or did BS's FB page disappear again?
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
I can't find it either!
We've moved around a lot and I've had working with children checks in WA, SA and NT in the last 4 years. The system seems the same and costs a similar amount. As said before they're only denied if there is something on record for you. The idea is good but probably gives a sense of false security and certainly is a lovely money spinner for the state coffers! It's all automated!My daughter is underage so no licence for her. You have to provide id from two lists. List one is a signature and non signature document. Signature is licence/learners/proof of age card or an Australian passport. Non signature is birth certificate, proof of citizenship or permanent residency or an overseas passport. List two has signature (student ID, credit or bank card, health care card etc) or non signatures (medicare card, bank statement, tax assessment notice etc).
As for protection, I don't know. In my job our police checks are done every 5 years and unless it's something really serious like murder I'd image, I don't think a conviction would show up until your next check. When I was at uni a fellow student was charged with molesting a child during the course of their studies, he was removed from his workplace immediately but until there was a conviction I don't think anything would have shown up on his check (he already had his blue card). It's an odd system especially when you consider so many people have passed checks and then historical crimes come up. I suppose if it's not on your record then there's nothing that would show up
Edited to add that Part F of the form says this section must be completed by the organisation's representative irrespective of whether or not the organisation can sight the identification above (in Part E). Part G is the payment details section and then you pop the form in the mail and wait for your Blue Card to turn up in the post. This is Queensland.
Because they were up to no good(of a different kind) and don't want to come forward.
Because they were up to no good(of a different kind) and don't want to come forward.
We've moved around a lot and I've had working with children checks in WA, SA and NT in the last 4 years. The system seems the same and costs a similar amount. As said before they're only denied if there is something on record for you. The idea is good but probably gives a sense of false security and certainly is a lovely money spinner for the state coffers! It's all automated!
Thing is though, let's say it was a drug dealing. What are the odds people meeting to deal drugs outside a house where a child goes missing that morning aren't linked?
Thing is though, let's say it was a drug dealing. What are the odds people meeting to deal drugs outside a house where a child goes missing that morning aren't linked?
Illicit drugs
In 2004, 38% of Australians aged 14 years and over had used an illicit drug in their
lifetime and 15% in the last 12 months.
Marijuana/cannabis was the most common illicit drug used (34% had used in their
lifetime).
In 2004, 9% of Australians aged 14 years and over had used methamphetamine in
their lifetime and 3% in the last 12 months.
I would say that most drug users and even dealers would have zero interest in abducting a 3 year old. Drug use is prevalent enough in society that if drug use and crimes on the level of kidnap were that closely correlated, there would be a lot more kidnappings.
Look at the stats on drug use: BBM and stats from Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report 2006 "Statistics on drug use in Australia 2006" http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442467962
I don't mean to pick on you at all, but I would place my bets on people with an apparent history of abuse of children over randoms scoring some weed when it comes to likely perpetrators of a kidnap.
The occupants of the two cars had gone for a walk in the bush? A walk in the bush with a dog maybe?
No they haven't and that is what I've been wondering. We're there people in the cars and how many? Male, female?I thought I heard it mentioned that the drivers windows were open, you'd probably not leave your window open (maybe a crack at the top) if you were going bushwalking. Did they say whether the vehicles were occupied or not?
I would say that most drug users and even dealers would have zero interest in abducting a 3 year old. Drug use is prevalent enough in society that if drug use and crimes on the level of kidnap were that closely correlated, there would be a lot more kidnappings.
Look at the stats on drug use: BBM and stats from Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report 2006 "Statistics on drug use in Australia 2006" http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442467962
I don't mean to pick on you at all, but I would place my bets on people with an apparent history of abuse of children over randoms scoring some weed when it comes to likely perpetrators of a kidnap.
I just watched the "extra snippet" from the 60 Minutes show that wasnt shown last night. Inspector Jubelin makes a comment that he knows they are going back and interviewing the locals time and time again and that he would be find it suspicious if anyone had a problem with that. Perhaps the police should have released all the evidence they had earlier rather than now so they would not need to be going back time and again. I know I will get up some peoples noses but I dont think the police have done much of a job in this case. They need to get everything out there if they need the publics help. Too much secrecy. I know William was in a fostering situation but this is an extraordinary case. The normal fostering laws regarding identity should not apply here.