childrens lauretes wont visit schools in protest of being forced to be CRB checked!

[lexilex]

some thing doesnt ring right with this! what have they got to hide. children need to be protected. at my sons school parents have a CRB check if they help in the classroom alot and i dont here any of us wingeing.

But we have every reason to think it won't make a difference. It's the old 'something must be done/this is something/therefore, this must be done' fallacy.
No-one is objecting to trying to protect children. What people object to is the idea that this will be any use.

Most people who work with children don't actually pay though, do they, their employers do.

Writers are self-employed...

The new Laureate has spoken on the matter

here

Quite sensibly...

If anything this hysterical attitude to child protection will make abuse worse. Why? Because most abuse happens in families by adults already trusted by the child. Now the message is ALL adults are potential paedophiles, so if anything awful is happening at home, you dare not talk to anyone outside the home about it since they're equally untrustworthy. Children need to have some faith in other adults to related to them, they need to know that not every adult will hurt them, if only so they can realise the difference between what is normal adult/child relationship and what isn't.

Lots of people have to pay for their own CRBs. And those people are ususally on a low wages. Lots of agencies dont take workers on without a CRB. I have rather more sympathy for those on minimum wage, working shifts and cleaning up crap. (BTW I love your name - beatitude is one of my favourite words )

I heard the current Laureate on R4 and he seemed very sensible about the whole thing. He seemed to think people were getting their knickers in a twist about nothing and should get on with it.

Again - I am not saying the systems in place or ideal or even much use. I have at it on several occassions (particularly whilst waiting for 4 mths to start my new job because of it). But there do need to be checks in place surely? What do we do then? Any ideas.

The kids I work with are the most vunerable. The majority would not be able to tell that they were being hurt. Some of them will never be able to do this. How do we protect vunerable children and adults?

Its all very well being up in arms about how crap it all is but what do we do instead? I do not believe that the rules/laws are put in place purely to annoy the likes of Quentin Blake. I do not think they are put in place just to make money off of people who want to work with kids either (and I am as cynical as they come).

I DO NOT think there is a paedo behind every tree but there ARE many sick people who do want access to kids and will go out of their way to get it. We cannot ignore it because it upsets a few literary luvvies. Frankly I do not understand their outrage. PITA yes, pointless perhaps but its not exactly the end of children's literature as we know it.

There are no more pervs and no more child murders than there ever have been. But now we know what we do about those who hurt kids we cannot unlearn it or ignore it.

But that's the point chegirl - not one extra child will be protected because of this. It's just a box ticking exercise so that we can look as if we're "doing something". It's not actually "doing something" is it?

I'm amazed that anyone bothers to volunteer to do work with children.

Most child abuse occurs in the home.

Most child molesters have not been detected before they have offended several times.

The protesting poets/writers will not be alone with a single child let alone a group of children. They are absolutely right to stand up and say enough is enough of knee jerk lunacy and paranoia when it comes to child protection.

At the rate we are going, I as a parent will have to have a CRB check before I can invite another child to my house without its parents being present. Thereafter, we will all have to be CRB checked in order to qualify to be parents.

Please can we have some common sense!

I don't think it comes down to a simple choice between "tick the box and go along with it" on the one hand, and "refuse and disagree" on the other.

If someone wants me to tick a box and pay to be on an Approved register, then I will. Because ultimately my going into schools is going to benefit me and (I hope) the pupils. So refusing will benefit neither. Even though, really, I don't want to have to pay £64. (Phrases involving noses, and the cutting off thereof, spring to mind.)

But I can still do it and make noises about how this doesn't bring us any closer to catching the real criminals. I can still do it and be aware of the real issues around child protection (I've been to some recent Child Protection Awareness training and I think everyone who works with children should do so).

'unrelated' Sorry chegirl but the idea that because some children are abused by adults, we should assume all adults coming within 3 feet of a child to be guilty until proven otherwise doesn't stand with me. Logically you could apply the same measures to prevent any crime. There are a lot of rapists about. Let's make sure that all men who wish to work with or study alongside women haven't committed any sex crimes first. Yes, lets have two doors in every building one for men and one for women. Only once the men have handed in their CRB papers can they mingle inside. The whole thing is ridiculous. It's hard enough for some under funded schools to find enough volunteers for school trips. Imagine the excursion trip letters: "This week class x is going to the science Museum. Parents who wish to accompany their children can approach the class teacher. Volunteers are appreciated.

*Must be CRB checked.

Is this really going to be put through?

So there is a clear dividing line at the moment between people who work with children, who need to be checked, and people who volunteer, who don't?...

I was going to say that is at least clear, if not totally logical - but then scout and guide leaders are volunteers, and they need checks.

I dont think you can be entirely sure of that HB. Whilst I DO understand your objections (yeah I do honest). CRB checks will have protected children. If nothing else they would have stopped those with convictions bothering to apply for jobs as they know they will be caught out.

Just because the majority of abuse occours within the home does not negate the amount that occours outside of it. A large amount of abuse is perpertrated by those known to the child and in positions of trust and power i.e. teachers, priests, social workers, police, children's entertainers for e.g.

I am not defending the current system (as you will see from pretty much all of my posts so far) but I am saying we do need systems in place and this is what we have now.

I have often used the argument about offenders not being caught for many years so CRBS are not going to stop all of them BUT offenders WILL try it on, they WILL apply for jobs that get them near kids if they think they will get away with it. This new rule is attempting to bridge the gap shown up by the Soham case (from what i understand).

Personally I think that better communication and information sharing is a better way of protecting children. Despite this being highlighted in every bloody child murder enquiry since (and probably before ) Victoria Climbe it is STILL not happening. I know for a fact that some social work teams refuse to work with other teams and share information. Police systems seem to be all over the place and I have seen lots of examples of workers rushing around making sure that kids dont fall throught the net due to rubbish systems failing them. Its almost like a race against some huge machine that is determined to swallow them up.

Of course we will not need a crb check to be a parent. Thats just silly.

CRB checks don't actually confirm whether someone is a paedophile or not. It confirms whether that person has a previos conviction or they are on the list of child sex offenders.

so in theory, anyone with a CRB check could still get a position within an organisation that puts them in contact with children.

and ouy might be surprised to know that some schools are still quick lackadaisical about allowing visitors into school who, for example, are interested in doing a PGCE in the future. My own school insists on a CRB whatever the circumstances; other schools allow visitor but the teacher in charge needs to ensure they are not left alone with a child or children... but I am well aware that if a visitor came into a classroom they would plenty of opportunity to talk to youngsters as a lesson was going on, etc.

all i'm saying is the system is not foolprrof and there are other people that we should be getting our knickers in a twist about more that visiting authros who, as others have already mentioned, are not left alone for one minute and usually have to endure reading and Q&A sessions in a hall full of about 100-200 kids and loads of staff.

I wonder if anyone asked Carol Ann Duffy if she'd had a CRB check last week when she visited our school? AIBU to worry that she read to some of our youngsters despite having a poem banned last year for being provocative??

I don't understand why people who volunteer to go in and speak to large groups of children need to be CRB checked when there is no likelihood that they will ever be left alone with the children.

As part of a promotion to get more girls interested in science, I was asked to go to schools and speak to girls about why science is so fascinating. I was not CRB checked. Now, it appears that in order to do this in future, I will have to pay £64 for the privilege. No chance. Why should I have to pay to give up my free time for other people's off-spring, especially when
I will not be left alone with them and teachers would be present at all times?

We are implying danger where none exist.

(To be scrupulously fair, spokette, you wouldn't. I believe this applies to authors who go into schools once a month or more often, so isn't necessary for one-off events. I don't think that makes significantly more sane, admittedly)

Authors will be speaking to large groups of children with teachers present and will never be left alone with the children.

Where is the danger?

The rules are stupid and the only thing they achieve is to further reduce volunteers willingness to work with children.

When I read the OP I disagreed...

But how many of you have actually read the whole article?

The fees are going to be paid FOR the authors, not paid for BY the authors.

And the bit about regular contact with children leading to building a relationship of trust was quite a good point I thought.

Ok, so if someone didn't have a previous conviction it wouldn't stop them, but it will protect children from anyone who has a criminal record, even when convictions have been "spent".

I'm sure that these lovely children's authors have got no nasty agenda, but as a parent and someone who has worked in schools, I would never get uppity about being checked. It's nothing to take personally.

I suppose some writers do have closer contact with children. for example, if you write for teenagers and you give large scale presentations, you won't really be in much contact with them. But what about if you go into primary schools and work with smaller groups and they crawl all over you, wanting to hold your hand.

My kids' school want parents to agree to be checked if they are going in to do work. Or go on trips. At least I think I read something like that (not very on the ball emoticon needed).

Where does it say that the fees are going to be paid FOR the authors? UnquietDad (who's not only read the article but is an author affected by the policy) is certainly under the impression that he's going to be stumping up the cash himself.

"Only authors who plan to go into schools regularly - once a month or more - will have to be registered. And the government has said the fees will be paid for authors, provided they are not being paid to visit schools."

That's a new one on me. But anyway, they should be paid to visit schools.

I have my suspicions that it's an extention of a money making scheme under the guise of child protection.

While we're at it, why don't we make everyone in the country have a yearly CRB check so that they can sit on the same bus as a child. That should really bring the money rolling in .

Chegirl I?m not arguing for one moment that CRB checks haven?t protected children.

I?m saying that these particular CRB checks won?t.

And why is it silly to say that we don?t need CRB checks to be parents? More children who are sexually abused, will be abused by parents than random school visitors. So if you think random school visitors need CRB checks, then logically you must think parents do, seeing as how they constitute a much bigger threat to children.

My DC?s school does insist on CRB checks for parent helpers btw. Even though they are never alone with the children. I have the opportunity to be alone with some of the children in my house when they come for playdates, but no-one insists on a CRB check for that ? just for when I accompany them on a school trip, in company with several other CRB checked adults.

I meant silly because its not going to happen, sorry if I was rude. It was a quick post whilst I was supposed to be ironing . Whilst not wanting to further the argument - I dont agree with your logic about my logic

I am finding myself in a confusing position here - I dont think CRB checks etc are particularly helpful but I dont think this particular group should be excluded either.

Children will always be abused. We cannot stop it for the reasons already discussed.

Anyhoo - I got involved with this thread because I had heard a few of the authors discussing the subject and they annoyed me with their attititudes. Its not really about the bigger issue for me. They got up my nose and they sounded full of self rightious indignation.

Maybe not the most noble reason for becoming involved in a debate but what can I say?

I really don't think they are arguing that they should be excluded just because they're authors. They're using themselves as an example of why these checks can do more harm than good. They're not for a moment saying 'Check everyone except us'.
It's going to apply to other groups as well - a lot of academics who go into schools regularly to promote their subject or encourage young people to apply to their institution will be in the same position as the writers, though probably the university will just pay. Again, it will be easy to do but essentially pointless - the students he sees are usually 17 years old and he wouldn't need any kind of check if they came to see him on campus alone instead of him visiting the school!

sorry, there was a missing sentence there - should say 'My dh does quite a few school visits as admissions tutor.'