Saving Children From Writers

~ Cheryl

Today’s Independent brings the news that a group of leading UK writers of children’s books will no longer be doing school visits because they object to having to be vetted to prove that they are not paedophiles. Philip Pullman is one of the more prominent authors involved.

This is part of a wider government initiative to insulate the nation’s children from all possible forms of harm, no matter now unlikely. One of the possible side-effects I have seen discussed is that UK conventions will no longer be able to admit children unless all convention staff have been vetted.

Of course, this is all for the good of the children. They have to be protected from bad people. And you can be sure that this legislation is going to get used to bar all sorts of people from working with kids, starting with LGBT folk.

9 thoughts on “Saving Children From Writers”

  1. It’s totally preposterous to suggest this will keep children safe, and it’s being done for the children. It’s being done to tick boxing on saying “Don’t blame us”. In order to keep safe, you need to keep looking at the children. Box ticking culture actually makes children less safe, and increases the risks. Baby Peter was seen by a box ticking culture, that didn’t look at him, but filled the paperwork in that said they’d been in the room and seen him. But no one looked. To this day, senior managers at Haringey are screaming “We filled in all the boxes, this is so unfair, we did our jobs!”

    Under these rules, the till workers at my supermarket require child protection checks. They see my child up to three times a week!

    We recently had an incident with a breastfeeding per supporter being told she wasn’t ‘professional’ as she didn’t have child protection boxes ticked. She visits newborns and Mums in the hospital.. Why does she need to be checked for child protection? Because there is a child! Well then, better stop kids walking the streets and going onto buses!

    Vulnerable children are failed by this sort of culture: they are put at more risk. Genuine caring adults are scared senseless about even saying ‘Hello’ to a child, and the nutters and sickos know to use the ‘tick boxing’ to get them access to the most at risk – safely away from the real adults to scared to keep a watch. It’s driving me *MAD*.

    Look at the children, not the boxes.

    Oops. Thanks for the rant…

  3. And a question – how does one prove one isn’t a paedophile?? The only thing anyone could prove was that they haven’t been caught…

  4. Mod up Morgan Gallagher on the tick boxing. Reading about Baby Peter and another child who suffered at the hands of an overburdened and possibly legislatively shackled child protective system (yeah, carers are a preferable watchdog, but I’m being realistic here) and knowing about similar stories of children in the States, tick boxing *will* just make kids more vulnerable.

    And of course, the sort of assumptions involved, i.e. that fellow children, whether older or the same age won’t abuse their fellows are quite scary. I know that may sound crazy, but I’m speaking from history here.

  5. Glenda:

    This isn’t about catching paedophiles, this is about covering the arses of politicians and bureaucrats when something goes wrong. It is just another form of security theatre.

  6. I’m curious, how different is the “proof” from what we do in the states? To get a teaching license or work at a summer camp, one must be be fingerprinted and show that one hasn’t been arrested as a sex offender of any type –

    Odd that U.K. would require it of visitors – we don’t require that for classroom *visitors* as they’re never left alone with the kids, by law the teacher must be in the room at all times.

    The kids at cons things is a real concern for cons and fandom – I can’t imagine anyone’s going to have all staff vetted (there’s some expense to this aside from the offense of assuming guilt till innocence is proven) – if kid is with parent (as in parent is on site), that would solve it for U.S. as parent it responsible – would that not solve it for U.K. as well or am I missing something?

  7. Twilight:

    Alex Massie has been on the case and has this from the Department for Children, Schools and Families:

    “This is because visitors to schools, even if they are supervised by a teacher at all times, are being placed in a unique position of trust where they can easily become deeply liked and trusted by pupils.”

    “We therefore need to be sure that this trust is well placed in case pupils bump into them out of school where a teacher is not present.”

    There’s no limit to their paranoia.

  8. Since many instances of child abuse feature family members, perhaps the Govt should anyone whose close relatives have children?

Comments are closed.