Sludge
- 2014-12-15
It certainly shouldn't be viewed as a "bloody criminal background check" as if it's troublesome to you. If you have reason to view it as such, to me that's a good indication that you have something to hide.
It is troublesome because UK citizens are required to RETURN home for it, that is why it is a bloody pain in the arse. US Citizens can get one through their embassy, much like a brit passport, we must return home. So it is an inconvenience. And no I have nothing to hide except a spent shoplifting conviction when 15, long since erased into history under the UK laws.
Somebody
- 2014-12-04
You can only speak for yourself and not on behalf of other readers.
She speaks for me in this case.
yu2fa3
- 2014-12-04
.Maybe, you did not miss that poster. But it doesn't necessarily say that other readers did. You can only speak for yourself and not on behalf of other readers
Well this is a right dogs dinner of a piece of nonsense English. And I know who wrote it, and not a natural English speaker hahaha!
yu2fa3
- 2014-12-04
For foreign teachers, business people, cionstructiion workers - simply everyone. For example, sex tourists abusing children come from all sexes and all walks of life. [edited]
You're likely to get struck by lightning as you copy&paste in your living rooms in three different locations as being sexually molested by a woman. Be far more effective if the Chinese concentrated their budgets on winkling out the risky from among the men. You are preaching political correctness gone mad. It's a bit like the London police doing stop and search looking for explosives on the tube and stopping the same number of 70 year old white grannies as often as they do to people who might look the part. Extra special attention must be paid to men. And men of a certain age maybe. Getting done for smashing up a phone box when you're young should not be taken into account. They should get thrashed within an inch of their lives when it happens but they are not likely to be a sexual threat ever.
The Dog
- 2014-12-04
Criminal background checks should be mandatory for everyone going to reside in a foreign nation for some longer time.
For foreign teachers, business people, cionstructiion workers - simply everyone. For example, sex tourists abusing children come from all sexes and all walks of life. [edited]
Running a criminal check on anybody entering a foreign country to live and work (especially in a position of authority such as teaching) is normal and nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide. It certainly shouldn't be viewed as a "bloody criminal background check" as if it's troublesome to you. If you have reason to view it as such, to me that's a good indication that you have something to hide.
The Dog
- 2014-12-04
Maybe, you did not miss that poster. But it doesn't necessarily say that other readers did. You can only speak for yourself and not on behalf of other readers.
You and your vile opinions really weren't missed during your enforced hiatus.
Beth
- 2014-12-04
The ICPC is a scheme, not something that is mandatory yet. Although I think it should be.
However a CRB is just as effective, although to my knowledge doesn't make use of CEOPs databases. A CRB should be run every time a person applies to work with children... And is required by law in the UK if you are applying to work with children or vulnerable adults. In time it may be that the ICPC completely replaces the CRB, but for now it is an opt-in scheme.
If you are 'hiding the fact you are a paedo' neither a CRB nor the ICPC will be of much use; that is the very point of hiding the fact. If you are logging on from a internet cafe, or from an anonymous public wifi source, CEOP are unlikely to find you in their databases either.
Running a criminal check on anybody entering a foreign country to live and work (especially in a position of authority such as teaching) is normal and nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide. It certainly shouldn't be viewed as a "bloody criminal background check" as if it's troublesome to you. If you have reason to view it as such, to me that's a good indication that you have something to hide.
Sludge
- 2014-12-04
Erroneus information.
http://www.acro.police.uk/icpc/
The international child protection certificate would be more invaluable, don't you think? But then if you were a qualified teacher and knowledgable of the law, you would know this.A criminal background check cannot determine if you are a peadophile or not. Let's say for example they find out I have a conviction for car theft (I have not by the way!!!!), how would they know if I am hiding the fact am I a peado?
No, I would say countries like Oman have it right, blood test on the first day, and then depending on results of that, fingerprints taken and retina scan and background check done by the Royal Omani Police. You then commit any crimes or owe any debts and you cannot flit the country. Therefore the onus is on you to be a good citizen, and not be held to account over some stupid background check paper like the Chinese want, which is really absolutely superfluous and unneeded and an extra financial and physical burden to UK ft's. Just my opinion mind, not saying yours is wrong, you may well be right.
Beth
- 2014-12-03
Anybody who will potentially working with children should be subject to a criminal background check, especially so if you are from a foreign country!
And again, you should be there because you want to teach, not because you are using teaching as a method for worming your way in to a country in order to shag your way around it.
You and your vile opinions really weren't missed during your enforced hiatus.
Sludge
- 2014-12-03
And they should get on with it, and not grouse about it. Grousing about it leads the chinese to stricter measures such as requiring a bloody criminal background check, when before none was needed. A quick trip down to HK for a day and back and you would have a shiny new Z visa in your passport. Now, days past, alas no more. The grousers should stay at home, lest they ruin it for the rest of us, who seek to find chinese women to nest with.
yu2fa3
- 2014-12-02
Native speakers without qualifications should only be allowed to teach conversational English, as they do not have the knowledge to answer questions about the whys and hows of the language, that L2 speakers need in order to gain certification in English.
That makes good sound common sense to me. I concur.
Beth
- 2014-12-02
Wrong. Unqualfied native speakers withouit relevant degrees and proper teaching
qualificatuiojns do the harm.
Can you explain what an accusative-cum-infinitive structure is in English? Poor students that
you will "teach".....
It's to do with objects in transitive verbs. Don't make this a pissing contest about who knows more grammar; as has been proven many times, yours is not flawless and you hide any mistakes behind this 'descriptive' grammar nonsense. Getting technical is pointless considering anybody with access to this forum presumably has access to google also.
Non-native speakers with relevant degrees do just as much harm as unqualified native speakers. What one has in applied knowledge (a non-native speaker who has studied English will most likely understand the terminology and mechanics more) they other has in fluency and the non-native speaker will make frequent mistakes in pronunciation and grammar that a native speaker will more often than not not make.
As I said, non-native speakers should have to attain a C2 Proficiency level certification in English and even then should only be allowed to teach up to A2 level, in order to minimise these errors. Native speakers without qualifications should only be allowed to teach conversational English, as they do not have the knowledge to answer questions about the whys and hows of the language, that L2 speakers need in order to gain certification in English.