this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
33 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

4337 readers
205 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
Fluid@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
Nath@aussie.zone
33
NSW to ban people from appealing if working with children check denied (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 1 day ago by naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/australia@aussie.zone
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

So the article only seems to raise these two cases, and it's not clear to me that either of these two people hurt any kids after appealing their check.

Is it just me or is this cooked? The right to appeal decisions seems fundamental to help reduce malfunctions or biases in a system. If the appeals process is too lax (doesn't seem like it?) then strength it sure but wtf is this move?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Statistically, women are more likely to just straight up kill kids so there goes your harm mitigation theory.

[–] TimePencil@infosec.exchange -1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

@Taleya

"Statistically"

I would like to see those specific statistics.

Please tell me where I can see them.

@rowinofwin

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Here ya go

Page 17 has the comparison table you're after.

[–] TimePencil@infosec.exchange 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

@Taleya

Thanks.

However, that report relates to 'filicide', and this thread is discussing 'working with children'.

Are you aware of any studies that show that women (who are NOT the mother of a child victim) "are more likely to just straight up kill kids".

The report you provided seems related to 'domestic violence', and unrelated to the 'child care' sector.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

The original claims were not restricted to childcare, so i'm not playing move the goalposts.

[–] TimePencil@infosec.exchange -1 points 8 hours ago

@Taleya

I've not moved the goal posts.

This thread relates to 'working with children' and policies regarding background checks of those who do.

One toot read, in part, "Statistically women are the outlier offenders, around 5% or less for known sexual abuse."

You replied, "Statistically, women are more likely to just straight up kill kids so there goes your harm mitigation theory."

I asked for more information regarding your "statistics" and you provided a report related to 'filicide' in the context of 'domestic violence'. This is outside the scope of any "working with children" checks.

You wrote, "The original claims were not restricted to childcare..."

I haven't moved the goal posts at all.

This isn't a game. I am genuinely interested if you know of any statistical evidence that women, in a capacity for which they require a "working with children" background check, "are more likely to just straight up kill kids".