If protecting our children is paramount, how can we object to £64? : Thoughts on the Vetting and Barring System

Marvellous. The Daily Mail's delayed reaction to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, and the subsequent establishment of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, has produced the usual foam mouthed missive of which they appear to inordinately proud.

Under the legislation, those who work three or more days or once overnight per month with vulnerable groups in society, will be subjected to the Vetting and Barring System. This includes those who work within the "obvious" areas (i.e health care, education et al) and will include volunteers who "ferry children to clubs", amongst others. This will, potentially, include parents who transport other people's children.


One wonders therefore what on earth has happened at The Independent, The Guardian, The Times etc that they should have joined the Mail in it's incoherent ramblings that proclaim that to check on adults volunteering with children is tantamount to destroying their civil liberties.

Such is the idiocy of the response that seasoned journalists appear to be misinterpreting the legislation into any form that will provoke the most outrage amongst their readers.

The Independent has attempted to show voluntary groups feeling outrage where there is none, in response to what it refers to as "draconian regulations". Politicians who voted for the legislation are now clamouring against it - even though, as has been asserted, it passed unopposed by all parties at the time. Authors who visited schools are up in arms that they have to prove that they are not a threat to the children they visit.

Sarcasm is rife, as well it might be, but what is the alternative? Children have the right to be protected, and we as adults have a duty to them. It is not just children who are covered by this legislation - why no references to grandchildren taking their elderly grandparents out for the day where they might be tempted to "give them a shove"? Why is it not so funny to make references to volunteers working with the disabled?

Put simply - we, as a society, expect not to be questioned over any decision that we make in regard to our children. We should be able to hit them, undermine them, demean them - how dare the nanny state intervene with our right to do so? After all, it was good enough for us, wasn't it?

Of course it wasn't, and it certainly isn't good enough for our children either. By expressing misplaced outrage that suggests that paedophilia is restricted to certain sections of society, it prevents us from examining the actual truth of the matter.

The idea presented, that being a parent excludes you from being a paedophile, ignores the fact that the large majority of paedophiles have families who know nothing of their proclivities. It is a mental illness which cannot be treated. Castration, chemical or otherwise, only stops actual physical assault occuring - it does not stop the urges towards children.

I have two children, both of whom have delayed speech. My eldest has a diagnosis of autism, my youngest is about to start that process. They are vulnerable in a way that sadly many children are. They are both young, have little in the way of legally protected rights, and would not be able to express if anything happened to them. As emotional and over dramatic as it sounds, they are the world to me. I have and will continue to do everything I can to ensure their well being, happiness and growth.

They are almost the embodiment of the 'confident, loved and secure' young people that Alison Shepherd refers to in her opinion piece derived from the Mail article in The Independent on Sunday.


I had always thought of myself as staunchly libertarian, until I discovered that an acquaintance with whom I got on extremely well and had hoped would become a friend, who appeared very interested in helping my autistic son, whom I had let into my home and had been around my children, was arrested on charges concerning owning indecent images of children, and had been arrested on the same charges previously but released on caution. The caution previously earned meant that he was not on the sex offenders register.

Under the checks, his past history would have been exposed, and he would not have been employed in the position that he was where he encountered children and other vulnerable groups. I would not have met him, he would not have come into our lives, and I would not be flagellating myself with self hatred that I allowed myself to be tricked and potentially put my children in danger.

As a parent, I regularly have my children's friends over to play. As a parent who works night shifts, I am able to help out parents who have to work office hours, in terms of bringing their children to school, and this also helps my children, especially with the nature of their disability, develop socially.

Were it the case that I needed to be subjected to these checks, do I think that such examination of my life is an invasion of my civil liberties?

No - £64 is a very small price to pay if it prevents one child from being hurt, as despite the opinion held by some that our children "ain't...that innocent", mine are.

If there is a possibility that, by having the VBS, one child won't be hurt, if enforcing it will protect and maintain one child's innocence - to me, that cannot have a price levied upon it.