Well, How Was He To Know That The Government Would Screw It All Up?

The man whose inquiry led to new vetting procedures for adults working with children today calls on the Government to rethink parts of its controversial anti-paedophile register.

Sir Michael Bichard, who led the inquiry into child protection following the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002, said some people would be caught up in the Vetting and Barring Scheme unnecessarily.

Seriously now, looking at the bunch of nincompoops, time-servers and hopeless incompetents that make up this government, and the abject failure of pretty much all their other plans, you couldn’t foresee this happening?

Sir Michael's comments come after The Independent published the concerns of a group of respected British children's authors and illustrators, who said they intended to stop visiting schools in protest at having to register with the scheme. In an interview yesterday, Sir Michael said the idea that people like actors, authors or entertainers, who only occasionally visit a school, should register with the scheme should be reconsidered.

"If you visit one school in January, and then don't visit that school again, but visit another school in February and another in March, is that frequent or intensive? I think that's something which might merit reconsideration," Sir Michael said. "Based on the discussions and conversations I've had, clearly there is an issue."

Which sounds promising, and a vindication of their action.
Except he then carries on speaking:

The Government estimates that 11.3 million people – almost 20 per cent of the population – will have to register within five years. Sir Michael said that the figure was "astonishing" and "surprising" but was irrelevant as long as children were protected. In 2004, his report into child protection made recommendations including that a registration scheme be introduced for those wishing to work with children or vulnerable adults.

*sigh*

Yes, as long as ‘it’s for the chiiilllldreeeenn!’ it doesn’t much matter…

Yesterday, he said the system he had examined in 2004 had been "a mess" and he believed the UK was moving towards a "much better" scheme under which tutors, sports coaches and other people with access to children would have to be registered. But he warned: "What I didn't want was a disproportionate response. I made it very clear that I didn't want parents to have to check relatives before they could put their children in their care for babysitting and things like that.
"We must have proportionate arrangements. We mustn't over-react."

You just have, though, haven’t you? By saying that the figures quoted are ‘alarming and astonishing’ but then, in the next breath, declaring that it’s ok ‘so long as children are protected’.

And you seem to use the word ‘proportionate’ without knowing what it actually means:

A small relaxation of the rules would exempt thousands of people like the authors, who only visit schools occasionally, from joining the database.

While he appeared to endorse such a change, Sir Michael said the authors' reaction had been "disproportionate" and that he did not think that having to register on the scheme implied guilt.

Their reaction was ‘disproportionate’? They simply pointed out the absurdity of the system that allowed no leeway for differing levels of contact (which you yourself seem to agree with, or at least believe there should be a rethink) and advised that until the situation was resolved, they would withhold their services.

What should they have done? Shut up and gone along without any fuss?

"I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who say that just because they have to go through a checking process, somehow it's being implied that they are a child molester," he said.

"I don't think Roger Federer complains that because he has to expose himself to drug-testing, he's being accused of being a cheat – I think he accepts that as part of the responsibility of playing top-class tennis."

The differences being that ‘drug cheat’ doesn’t have quite the same impact as ‘child abuser’ and going into schools to read isn’t part of the authors jobs.

It’s a fringe benefit, meant to help the children to learn to love reading. Most of these authors aren’t paid for it and don’t need to do it.

Why should they put themselves through it if they are going to get kicked in the teeth by the likes of you?