Philip Pullman, et al

[Woody]

In a week when Philip Pullman and other authors have discovered they need to pay a one off regsitration fee to get a certificate stating they're not paedophiles, so they can give talks in schools, I managed to glimpse Minister for Policing, Crime and Security, Vernon Coaker, on BBC Parliament (sometimes better than watching the adverts) talking about the incidents during the G20 summit on climate change.

When it was put to him that it would be a good idea to bring in legislation to criminalise the covering up of police officers' identification numbers he said (I'm paraphrasing at little here)

"It is a very small number that are determined to cover up their number - the vast majority don't" and this is the reason he used for not bringing in legislation to criminalise it.

Well, well, isn't it funny how the other half lives   Problems caused by the minority are not worth legislating for because it is the minority; well, at least when it's one or another tools of the state.

Here's the link to BBC iPlayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00lt0d1/Select_Committees_Policing_and_Protest_Committee (though I think it may have been removed) and the questioning starts 42 minutes into the programme.

Edit: Just checked the link and it's still working - though the info said it would be removed at 6:35pm today!

[desertwomble]

What's wrong with needing a document to say you're not a convicted paedophile if you're hoping to perform an act or give a talk in a school?

I'm sure sexual predators who know a few magic tricks or have a clown act would love the opportunity of visiting schools as a guest speaker / performer if they could.

Or maybe the complaint by these writers was that they had to pay a fee for the document.

And as far as being indignant that they didn't know they needed this paper, I know that I've read about it before.

DW

[Woody]

mustn't have my stuff here, ed keeps it.

[Ed]

I agree with Woody - the burden of proof should always be borne by the state. In this case, I remember hearing the authors had to pay something in the region of £350 for the proper clearance to go and do what amounts to charity work. Many won't bother, so it's the kids that miss out at the end of the road. Has there ever been a case of an invited author molesting a kid? I seriously doubt it. And I also doubt if it would ever happen. There are better ways to provide protection for kids, i.e. by watching them properly.

[Woody]

mustn't have my stuff here, ed keeps it.

[Geoff_N]

Whenever I've given talks as a writer in schools, there are  several  teachers in the room too. I have a CRB cos I was a teacher and we had to have them to apply for jobs. But to have to sign a certificate to say  you are not a "pervert" is rather weird and a perversion of our civil rights in itself.

[Woody]

mustn't have my stuff here, ed keeps it.

[PaulH]

It wasn't so much going into schools that was the big issue with this. The intent was that anyone who had contact with children would have to get a CRB check or face prosecution. This meant if you drove your friend's kid to a school football match, gave a kid a lift home because it was raining, dropped them at Cubs or Brownies, or had one of your children's friends round for a sleepover, you'd need to be CRB checked. It was estimated that up to 11 million people would need to get a CRB certificate if this legislation went through.

Ed Balls has now ordered a 'review' of this situation - ie, he's had it pointed out to him that it's a bloody cock-up. It can take months for a CRB to come through as it is, particularly in August/September when new staff are starting in schools.

As it is, you have to get a CRB check done for any new place you work - I have a CRB from when I worked in school. I applied to volunteer at the library and they needed to get a new CRB done for me. Crazy.

Have to say, having a CRB when your job involves working with children or vulnerable adults is a good thing. But having to have one so you can do a favour for another parent is pathetic.