Who's safe?
John Freeman
Friday, February 11, 2011
So the government is intending to change the safeguarding legislation – vetting and barring, CRBs and List 99. This blog is not about the detail, but what I, as a parent, would expect from the system. I want, for example, to know that my children are safe from abuse with the following: their class teacher; their nursery nurse; their classroom assistant; the caretaker at their school; the priest or imam who gives them religious instruction; their music tutor; the swimming instructor, their athletics coach; and the taxi driver who drives our learning disabled child to school. All of these have, rarely, committed gross abuse upon their charges. So I want the state actively permanently to prevent access to these jobs by people who have been convicted or cautioned for abuse involving children.
So far so certain, but beyond that it’s a bit more murky. What about an arrest that does not lead to a charge? What about a pattern of repeated complaints? Personally, and having worked with cases where there was clear evidence of abuse but insufficient for the CPS to charge, I would have a low threshold for such cases. But I accept that there is room for debate here. And of course, before a potential abuser has offended, they will have a clean record. So one of the key protections is vigilance, both by parents, and by children, who should be encouraged to know what is right and wrong, and to disclose where appropriate. But at the same time, we don’t want a fascist state with children informing on parents and with witch-hunts. It’s a delicate balance – and one of the problems is that the tabloid press pick up so rapidly on what are, thankfully, rare cases, with government then pressed into a knee-jerk response. We have seen that before, and no doubt we will see it again.
