Soham report author criticises proposed scheme
Sir Michael Bichard, the former Whitehall mandarin who conducted the inquiry into the Soham killings, on which the new "Vetting and Barring" scheme was based, has joined calls for a review of the ISA's rules, suggesting the new restrictions on millions of ordinary adults were a disproportionate response to the threat posed by paedophiles.
The ISA will become the world's largest vetting and checking system when it starts work next month, checking the backgrounds of an estimated 11.3 million adults in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Anyone whose work brings them into contact with children will have to undergo checks costing £64, including all teachers, doctors, nurses dentists, pharmacists, prison officers, and school governors and dinner ladies.
Most controversially, parents who give lifts to friends' children to attend a football match or Cubs' evening will have to be vetted in all cases where the arrangements are made through the club or organisation.
The Daily Mail describes his comments here
There is an excellent piece on the "Bad Science" website here on the maths of why trawling huge numbers of people looking for terrorists doesn't work. It is no more effective when you're looking for paedophiles.
Matthew Paris in the Times writes persuasively on why This stupid child protection law will turn us into outlaws.
Parris's article begins
"Only two sane responses are possible to the Government’s new vetting and barring scheme for adults who volunteer to come into contact with children. One is rage, and the other despair. I incline to despair. But permit me a moment’s rage before I do."
and concludes ...
"I believe in the State.
I believe in a strong State.
I believe in the State’s core purpose: to regulate and arbitrate.
I believe in the State’s power to do good; to bring justice, security and order; to defend and protect its citizens; and to make their lives better.
I believe in the State’s duty to care for the needy; to ensure that the rich help the poor, and that the weak are helped by the strong.
And I believe finally in the State’s nobility as an idea; the inspiring power of the national ideal; the tremendous possibilities unleashed by collective action; and the love and duty owed by citizens to the State.
But the incontinent expansion of the State’s reach degrades its grip. It undermines legitimacy, lowers confidence and breeds disregard. Twelve years of new Labour’s flabby-minded growth in the public sector, and the bloating of its claims on individuals’ lives, have begun to rot the whole idea of something the Left ought to believe in, and the Right do: society, and the public good."
Let me emphasis that I am not supporting calls for this vetting system to be hacked back because I don't care about protecting children from paedophiles. I want to hack it back because I believe that it won't work.
The Conservatives have promised to trim back the scheme if we win the next election. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This scheme cannot be allowed to go ahead in this way. We would review the whole safeguarding process and scale it back so that common sense applies.'
Good.
The ISA will become the world's largest vetting and checking system when it starts work next month, checking the backgrounds of an estimated 11.3 million adults in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Anyone whose work brings them into contact with children will have to undergo checks costing £64, including all teachers, doctors, nurses dentists, pharmacists, prison officers, and school governors and dinner ladies.
Most controversially, parents who give lifts to friends' children to attend a football match or Cubs' evening will have to be vetted in all cases where the arrangements are made through the club or organisation.
The Daily Mail describes his comments here
There is an excellent piece on the "Bad Science" website here on the maths of why trawling huge numbers of people looking for terrorists doesn't work. It is no more effective when you're looking for paedophiles.
Matthew Paris in the Times writes persuasively on why This stupid child protection law will turn us into outlaws.
Parris's article begins
"Only two sane responses are possible to the Government’s new vetting and barring scheme for adults who volunteer to come into contact with children. One is rage, and the other despair. I incline to despair. But permit me a moment’s rage before I do."
and concludes ...
"I believe in the State.
I believe in a strong State.
I believe in the State’s core purpose: to regulate and arbitrate.
I believe in the State’s power to do good; to bring justice, security and order; to defend and protect its citizens; and to make their lives better.
I believe in the State’s duty to care for the needy; to ensure that the rich help the poor, and that the weak are helped by the strong.
And I believe finally in the State’s nobility as an idea; the inspiring power of the national ideal; the tremendous possibilities unleashed by collective action; and the love and duty owed by citizens to the State.
But the incontinent expansion of the State’s reach degrades its grip. It undermines legitimacy, lowers confidence and breeds disregard. Twelve years of new Labour’s flabby-minded growth in the public sector, and the bloating of its claims on individuals’ lives, have begun to rot the whole idea of something the Left ought to believe in, and the Right do: society, and the public good."
Let me emphasis that I am not supporting calls for this vetting system to be hacked back because I don't care about protecting children from paedophiles. I want to hack it back because I believe that it won't work.
The Conservatives have promised to trim back the scheme if we win the next election. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This scheme cannot be allowed to go ahead in this way. We would review the whole safeguarding process and scale it back so that common sense applies.'
Good.
Comments