Frame of my Mind

You may have noticed earlier that I posted a sarcastic remark here, and a link – Checks on children’s club drivers. This was because I was at work, and didn’t have time to write a proper entry about our government’s latest ‘scheme’. I am of course referring to the new vetting and barring scheme. An attempt to prevent child abuse by requiring all adults who have ‘frequent’ or ‘intensive’ contact with children to be criminally record checked. Anyone who fails the check will be barred from working with children.

This doesn’t just apply to school workers, doctors or club volunteers. This applies to, for example, adults who drive children other than their own to and from afterschool clubs (nominated minibus drivers/carpool operators), hosts for exchange students, and anyone who intends to visit schools on a regular basis. For example, childrens authors for ‘reading sessions’ and charity workers. Failure to comply results in a £5,000 fine. Compliance costs £64 (although the fee is waived for unpaid volunteers). ‘Frequent’ contact means once a month or more.

Why did they decide on this scheme?

Because of the Soham murders. Ian Huntley, who was mistakenly employed as a caretaker at a school after ‘passing’ criminal records checks, murdered two young schoolgirls. Ever since, the British government has been pushing for tigher checks on all employees that work in a place where they might have contact with minors.

However, I don’t think this alone is a good enough reason to implement this scheme. Why? It’s simple; Ian Huntley did not work at the school Holly and Jessica attended. The fact that he was employed at all was completely irrelevant. He would have met them regardless of his working position.

Furthermore, criminal records checks were performed on Ian Huntley. They revealed nothing of relevant concern. His only previous convictions were driving a motorcycle without a license and theft, many years ago. Implementing tighter checks would not have revealed anything more. It was found out after Ian’s conviction that rape and assault allegations had been made against him, but the allegations were not kept on file as they had not lead to a conviction, and the relevant police force would have considered it a breach of privacy had they done so. In my opinion, rightly so. Allegations that don’t lead to conviction should not affect a person’s criminal record – innocent until proven guilty.

I don’t condone Ian Huntley’s behaviour, of course. It was a dreadful incident that we will never be allowed to forget. I can only say that this response is a complete over-reaction and will not make any difference in the long run.

But surely it can only help to protect children further?

From what? Adults? Many people are arguing that it will widen the divide between youth and older members of society needlessly. By enforcing criminal records checks on all adults that have frequent contact with children could lead children to believe that all adults are dangerous unless they can prove otherwise. It is accusative and insulting to many people who have volunteered without trouble for many years. There has been a very strong hit-back from childrens authors who call the scheme ‘demeaning’. In my opinion, it is just a grandiose extention of the ‘Nanny State’, and a backdoor tax.

Many of these writers will be boycotting schools. I am sure that they won’t be the only ones. It is expected that many volunteers won’t agree with the checks and will not want to comply. Instead of continuing to volunteer and face a £5,000 fine, they will simply cease volunteering. Many more children will be out on the streets wondering what to do with their time because their clubs and youth groups closed down after failing to find, or retain, sufficient staff due to volunteers being unwilling to undergo the necessary checks. This is an absolutely dire outcome and is completely backwards. Reading comments on the BBC website; one person mentioned that there would certainly be a need for the “super ASBO” once the effects of this new scheme are felt.

A person could apply for a check and be completely clean (maybe they are not first time offenders, maybe they just didn’t get caught yet), yet still commit an offence the next day. Also, an extremely large proportion of attacks against children are committed by personal aquiantances and family members (I’ve heard it reported as high as 98% of cases). Therefore, the new scheme will not prevent the majority of incidents. What this scheme will ultimately protect against are attacks by those people who should be in jail already, and therefore wouldn’t be a threat.

The new scheme somehow sets a precedent and potentially opens doors to even tighter regulation in the years to come. There has been much joking and speculation about Britain’s future with the new vetting scheme. What’s next? Will we require vetting before we can spend time with our younger relatives? Will anyone living in a home that overlooks a school or park (mine does!) require criminal records checks and face eviction otherwise? Will all parents require checks before they can pick up their children from school, or do the school run for friend’s children? Will other parents be suspicious of any adult who /isn’t/ checked? The possibilities are endless…!

So no, I don’t believe this scheme will be able to protect children any more than current vetting schemes, and in fact will do more harm to youth and adult societies; separately. And with 11 milion adults estimated to require registration (that’s 1 in 4 of all adults), it will be extremely expensive to regulate and enforce. The money would be better spent elsewhere – for example; with the social services, where the protection of children really matters.