Authors Working in Schools

[Diello]

BBC NEWS | UK | School safety 'insult' to Pullman

 

Sorry, but am I the only one that is shocked they haven't been required to wayyyy before this? "I'm an author so I can't be a paedophile"... Umm...

[elsiegee40]

Realistically, how often is a visiting author/sportsman/insert-occupation-of your-choice left on their own with the kids?

 

In my school, never. Those who do school visits regularly (not just to us) do get themselves CRB checked, but we all know that the check isn't transferrable.

 

An unsupervised paedophile is a problem... if there's always a member of staff with a visitor, it's pretty unlikely to be a problem.

[sparkeh]

What makes authors so special they don't require a check?

 

Either you have a scheme that applies to everyone or you don't have one at all.

[elsiegee40]

What makes authors so special they don't require a check?

 

Either you have a scheme that applies to everyone or you don't have one at all.

 

Does your school only let people in who have had a CRB check?

 

I doubt it.

 

Schools have loads of visitors, be it delivery people, trades-people, occupational therapist, people talking to the kids on some on topic or whatever.

 

Some, but by no means all are CRB checked.

 

All schools take the same approach, visitors are accompanied and if there's any doubt whatsoever, they are never left alone with a child or group of children.

[witch]

As long as they are NEVER alone with the children I think they do not need to be checked. Realistically, how valid are the checks anyway? How long do they last?

[AngryTechnician]

Personally I don't see what the big deal is; they should get off their high horse and stop pretending they are better than everyone else.

 

Unfortunately the media have made a habit of painting any and every scheme the government has to collect information on people as intrusive, malicious, and that hideously overused media-favourite phrase 'Big Brother'. As such, it gets a negative reaction from anyone with an ego. Then the same papers that moan about how 'intrusive' the government is go ballistic over any failing in our outrageously overworked and demoralised social services departments that have been decimated by additional workload and cuts in funding. But I digress...

 

In my area the local council recently voted on a proposal to have local councillors CRB checked. One party backed it, the other two rejected it on the grounds that the 30-odd extra checks per year would it would be "too expensive" (despite the fact the council processes thousands of them for many of their other staff) and on "civil liberties" grounds (despite the fact that it doesn't require you to supply any new information, it just involves a check of what the authorities ALREADY KNOW). Once again: off the high horse, and stop pretending you're better than anyone else who works for the council.

 

/rant

[LeMarchand]

On one hand it does seem to be yet another bit of officiousness - as others have said, the authors would be accompanied at all times - but on the other, surely Pullman can afford £64? I would have thought that as they're in schools to flog their wares (albeit possibly indirectly) it would be worth getting themselves rubber stamped (they could probably claim it as a business expense).

[witch]

Why would councillors need to be CRB checked? Seems intrusive to me.

 

What worries me is the blanket idea that if you are CRB checked then you *must* be OK. The CRB check only shows up things you have been caught doing!

 

It is no substitute for vigilance - although some agencies seem to think that it is

[AngryTechnician]

Why would councillors need to be CRB checked? Seems intrusive to me.

 

Because they will sometimes be working with vulnerable adults who are having problems with council services, ether during surgeries or home visits. Plus, I would rather someone representing me was not hiding a criminal record!

[Kitkatninja]

...What worries me is the blanket idea that if you are CRB checked then you *must* be OK. The CRB check only shows up things you have been caught doing!...

 

Exactly.

 

-Ken

[stu]

Realistically, how often is a visiting author/sportsman/insert-occupation-of your-choice left on their own with the kids?

 

In my school, never. Those who do school visits regularly (not just to us) do get themselves CRB checked, but we all know that the check isn't transferrable.

 

An unsupervised paedophile is a problem... if there's always a member of staff with a visitor, it's pretty unlikely to be a problem.

 

just because a person isn't left alone on the ground with a student doesn't mean that they wont talk to students and gather enough information to approach them out of school hours. Though i do agree with witch that a CRB check doesn't prove anything about future actions.

Edited July 16, 2009 by stu

[teejay]

The problem is this isn't just a CRB check, it's a database which will be available online for instant access by a multitude of organisations and also for any organisation to be able to lodge a complaint on the system which will be assessed by some nameless person who will decide whether or not they will be banned, no proper investigation or anything.

 

You cannot use some officious database to alleviate problems caused by a lack of use of common sense.

[jamesb]

just because a person isn't left alone on the ground with a student doesn't mean that they wont talk to students and gather enough information to approach them out of school hours. Though i do agree with witch that a CRB check doesn't prove anything about future actions.

 

If we start going down this road, that people shouldn't be allowed to talk to students as there's a potential risk of gathering information we may as well lock the little darlings away at home, after CRB checking the parents of course.

 

Can't let them go out after all, there's scary strangers out there.

[apoth0r]

I was rather annoyed when I read that too.

Who do they think they are??

 

I find it disgusting that they are kicking up a stink about something helping to protect the children.

It might not be the greatest of systems having read a few more posts but it's something, everyone is responsible for their own actions and unfortunately it won't stop some people. I say that with my teeth gritted because it makes me sick.

[Disaster]

bit over the top in my opinion.

the government want us to live in fear, this is just an extra bit to add.

[grumpy_git]

Pretty stupid - I don't know who is telling them?

 

Think of all the visitors to a school site, as elsiegee40 points out. They're always accompanied if they're going about site. Often we have external speakers in to speak to students - I don't know if they're CRB checked or not but they're always accompanied and in a hall with a huge number of students and staff to.

 

Isn't there a new "ISA" database coming in in September - which, apparently, the employee has to pay £60 to register for? Obviously a system designed by someone who thinks £60 is, to borrow a phrase from Boris Johnson, "chicken feed".

[tech_guy]

Pullman's ego is getting in the way here. Tools out of the pram time. He sounds a typical celebrity idiot.

[srochford]

Who do they think they are??

 

I find it disgusting that they are kicking up a stink about something helping to protect the children.

 

they think they're people with a brain and some common sense!

 

How exactly will a system like this "protect the children"???

 

Just remember (and it was a point made by Philip Pulman as well as many others before) that the vast majority of attacks on children come from parents and other relatives - we don't bother to do any checks on them!

[GrumbleDook]

Have we lost a few posts in this thread?

[leco]

Have we lost a few posts in this thread?

 

Or are they in the other similar thread about Government vetting of school visitors?

[PiqueABoo]

I find it disgusting that they are kicking up a stink about something helping to protect the children.

 

Given how useless our elected representatives are at it these days in what is an increasingly control-freakish society, I'm all for people questioning things whether I agree with them or not.

 

How do you know any of these "something"s will deliver what they claim? Or be an improvement on the existing "somethings"? Factor in how many other gov initiatives have delivered the (originally promised) results during your lifetime.

[GrumbleDook]

Or are they in the other similar thread about Government vetting of school visitors?

 

Getting confused by Tech_guy posting basically the same post in both threads ... I blame the thunder storms.