Comments on: The Protection of Children Act 1999

By: KateG

KateG — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:10:53 +0000

The law has been ‘clarified’.
Note… not changed, because that would imply that there was a failure in the law to begin with…
… but ‘clarified’ in such as way as now makes my previous entry pretty much invalid! For better or for worse.

By: AdrianH

AdrianH — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:08:34 +0000

Hi Kate, just heard the 2am BBC News, (been listening to Bob Harris), and Ed Balls has said that the scheme is being looked at again. One particular area highlighted for criticism was that of children’s authors having to register…

By: KateG

KateG — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:49:47 +0000

Another twist to the tale…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8406378.stm

By: AdrianH

AdrianH — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:04:38 +0000

While I totally agree that protecting children is of absolute importance, this sort of micromanaged, beaurocratic nonsense does nothing to protect the vulnerable, but only serves to protect the backs of the beaurocrats. The most recent high-profile examples prove that all these checks serve no purpose; the two little girls murdered in Soham were killed by someone who they knew through another person who had undergone checks, and both girls were close to. The very recent case of a nursery teacher taking pornographic pictures of children in her charge for the gratification of herself and others shows again that the checks are useless as she had a ‘clean’ background. If checks on people like Kate have to be carried out, then why on earth can’t it be ‘global’, applying to all authorities in the country? It’s not difficult to have a national database, accessable online and secure password protected, or swipe-card accessed, so that a school can check a visitor’s background. It’s just micromanagement, and an excuse for minor civil servants to wield power over ordinary people, and make them pay unnessessary sums of money for the privilege. Plus, yet again, the ultimate losers are the children, who won’t get to meet a wonderful writer who could easily encourage others to go out and achieve what Kate has done. I thought that’s what education was supposed to be about, not stifling and smothering children’s developement.
Or is that perhaps the idea? Can’t have a generation of children who might actually *question* what’s going on around them, can we?

By: Skaldi

Skaldi — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:16:44 +0000

In Australia to work with kids you need a working with children card. I’m not sure how long it’s valid for, certainly more than just a once off, but it’s a similar sort of concept.

Unfortunately people still do slip through though.

By: Niki

Niki — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:40:30 +0000

I agree with you Cat about the paramount importance of the principle. I’ve been checked more times than I can remember (they have all come back clear I hassen to add!) both because professionally I have to have a clear check also because I’ve worked with children on residential courses and in schools. I agree that the forms are a nightmare to complete, and tedious beyond belief – I have had similar experiences to Ele in having to “prove” that calling myself Ms does not mean I’m divorced – but I think the importance of the principle outweighs the inconvenience.

However, I do have the following concerns:
* the system does not guarantee that the results are 100% accurate.
* even if they are accurate, the checks are only as good as they are up to date so there is an inevitable compromise/judgement call in deciding how often to re-check. (I think this is meant to be better under the new ISA system?).
* I have concerns about any public sector organisation keeping my personal data secure!

Ultimately though I think these are all practical problems to which there has to be a solution in improving the system; the bureaucratic inconvenience is less important than the reasons for having the system in the first place.

Just my tuppence-worth.

By: Ele

Ele — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:47:45 +0000

I agree with you that the protection of children is of paramount importance, in any culture. And not having really experienced any CRB check grief (except one instance in which I was asked repeatedly whether I was sure I had not been previously married, seen as I had indicated myself as “Ms”), I tend to think that said protection of children is essential, no matter at what cost.
But then I start to hear about bureaucratic nightmares that are really more worth of my country’s fame than yours. Paul applied to do some teaching assistant work both in London and in the North, around the same time, and he will have to apply for two separate CRB checks, not because it is two separate instances (his London CRB check will do for more than one school / youth club) but because it is two separate constituencies. Surely a background check that takes six weeks to come through can guarantee a little bit of collaboration between different local authorities?
I’m generally quite content with a nanny state and I don’t object to a centralised storage of criminal records. But CRB checks are another instance that makes me wonder about the British tendency to over-regulate as soon as soon as a deficiency has been pointed out. Especially in the case of children protection, when really, past record isn’t a guarantee of future behaviour at all.
I do hope that children all over the UK can keep benefiting from having you pop round for a visit – and you never know, if they’re lucky you might talk to them about Satan