Well, not always. But often.
In the case of Polly Toynbee, whose latest Guardian column is featured next to a rather apt fake charity NSPCC advert, her conformance is likely attributable to a lack of logic:
"Ministers are on a hiding to nothing: negligent in cases of harm, intrusive when checking on adults helping out with children"
Illogical because once the state assumes the role of arbiter of suitability, it's perfectly possible to be negligent and intrusive, which it frequently is.
She continues:
"As with all records, there will be errors – there always are. But those barred have the right to see why, to know who registered them and to challenge wrong information. Some may slip through the net – but most will be flagged up."
"There will be errors... Some may slip through the net but most will be flagged up..."
Precisely the same could be said if parents and children were simply encouraged to protect themselves from abuse by just saying NO to those who use their positions of authority to exploit the vulnerability of their victims. All whilst adhering to the rule of innocent until proven guilty. All without having to drag the details of millions of innocent people onto a database the small minority of unconvicted paedophiles will be falling over themselves to be registered on.
"It's reasonable to expect that anyone who comes from an organisation has been checked. How angry would a parent be if the Brownies suggested someone who had never been checked and who turned out to be an abuser? These days fear of abuse – often stirred by the press – deters parents from letting children take part in activities."
Perhaps because I am logical, checks mean very little to me. Polly needs to take a good long hard look at all of the "checked" abusers who have quite easily wormed their way into schools, care homes and other organisations on account of their clean record. I see no reason to fully trust the checks of an organisation; neither do I see any reason to be deterred from letting my children take part in activities.
"The ISA is reducing three registers down to two and gets its
information from the CRB – a check for employees that the last
Conservative government devised."
Who cares whether the ISA will reduce three registers down to two? What's relevant is the sheer number of people who will be on the thing. And wherever the ISA gets its information from, if that information is incorrect or misleading then either innocent people will be villified, or paedophiles will be given a green light to abuse - and illogical people like Polly will nevertheless rest assured that their children are safe from harm. Bad, wrong, dangerous.
"The new register was recommended by the Bichard inquiry, following the Soham murders. Bichard uncovered how hopeless the police are at passing information from one authority to another if it's left up to them: the ISA will collect it all instead."
Polly's lack of critical thinking here is alarming. Fortunately, retired detective chief superintendent Chris Stevenson has thinking skills and direct experience of what he is talking about. The senior detective who took over the Soham investigation had this to say: "This CRB-check paranoia won’t stop another Soham. I helped to catch Ian Huntley and I know these stupid rules would not have prevented his crimes." Quite.
"Philip Pullman is understandably indignant at needing a check to visit schools (though I imagine he's rarely left unaccompanied by admiring teachers). Checking him sounds excessive, and Ed Balls's new guidelines may frame an exemption while still allowing for volunteers who do extra reading sessions to be checked."
Ah! Framing exemptions for people who don't look or act like paedophiles! The system according to Polly just gets better and better...
"I know of one good old charity doing excellent work with inner-city children that had to abandon some of its best projects when it emerged that a board member was a convicted paedophile, and a few children complained they were molested at one project. And much harm was done to hundreds more, after the rumpus prevented a main part of the work continuing in the same way. To name the charity would only do the same damage all over again, but if everyone had been checked from the start, none of it would have happened."
WTF? When a person with a conviction for sexual offences against children is allowed to take up a position of authority that will bring him into contact with children - almost certainly particularly vulnerable ones - THAT, RIGHT THERE, IS NEGLIGENCE. We do not need a new initiative such as the ISA to identify such people. That "good old charity" is at best naive, at worst utterly corrupt - and I question the morality of sweeping such a scandal under the carpet.
And finally, if you needed further evidence of Polly's conformance to the nannying state, here it is:
"Yesterday Martin Narey of Barnardo's spoke out in strong support for
the new register. "Calm down," he rightly admonished the ranters. The
NSPCC added its support. All the charities for children, the mentally
ill, the disabled and the elderly have been consulted: they are the
ones who must give a dusty answer to frivolous critics. They carry
weight because they understand tricky day-to-day problems."
What recommendations. Martin "baby snatcher" Narey. Monumental fake charity and witch-hunt initiator, the NSPCC. All the other government-funded, government-lobbying charities for the children, the mentally ill, the disabled and the elderly. Do these organisations understand the day-to-day problems of working with vulnerable people, or do they capitalise on them to fund extraordinary, corporate-scale marketing campaigns and salaries? I'd be more interested in what little, local, independent charities have to say.
It's more fun to have a good populist rant about the death of childhood, the evils of the nanny state and the infringement of civil liberties.
It's not at all fun. And if only it were more populist.
Registering will be a minor nuisance to many people, but it's not a milestone on the road to dictatorship.
Never was a less true word spoken.
H/t Amanda Enclade and Idze, who tweeted this quote and made me think: "The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it is conformity." - Rollo May.
