QUOTE(Silver seren @ Thu 15th March 2012, 10:05pm)
If it was about protecting the project and stated as such by the Foundation, then I would be fine with it.
What I am not fine with is the way CHILDPROTECT is worded as if it is actually protecting children. If it was worded as explaining that this is to protect the project from liability or involvement in such things, then I would be fine.
As I put in the 'Daily Mail' section, I believe that policy is a fuck up from start to finish and has no place being written up, at least not at this point in time. What also worries me is how involved Beta M's enablers are to it. They should not come within a mile of it much less have a say in how it's worded.
The policy is superfluous to requirements as there is already a project wide policy of zero tolerance to paedophiles and child/adult sexual relationship advocates as confirmed by Jimbo and Sue Gardner.