Proof that child safety is more about protecting children from the perceived extreme risk of pedophiles and similar abuse than about protecting them from accidents is shown by this quote from the CoE policy document on protecting children.

If in an emergency a driver has to transport one child on his or her own, the child must sit in the back of the car.

So officials are more worried about adults abusing children in a car than they are worried about the child getting hurt in a car accident, ignoring the fact that if an adult and child are alone the position of the child makes no difference to the likelyhood of an event happening. An accident is more likely than that of sexual abuse by a stranger adult. So which one should be the priority?

In an accident, sitting in the front seat the child will be protected by an air bag. To protect children against sexual abuse parents and children should be able to talk with each other about anything. Parents should encourage their child to speak to them about any fears or worries.

Openness not secrecy will stop abusers in their tracks. The current system of CRB and ISA checks is all about secrecy. Surprised? That’s because it does not bring out the abusers into the open. It keeps them hidden because its all about emphasising that children should be scared of all adults. If children think that all adults are potential abusers then they will have no one to talk to about their concerns.

The only ones the checks do publicise are those who have already committed an act, who are more likely to be in jail than out committing more abuses. If they have been released then they will be on the sex offenders register and monitored, so no new system is required for them.

Not forgetting that the majority who get a positive (or negative depending on your view point) result from the check system will have committed a relatively minor offence such a drink driving, GBH in their teens, etc. Crimes that have nothing to do with children.

So all that the CRB/ISA system does is emphasis that the state authoritatian method is in control and therefore no one else need worry about anything and personal responsiblity is not needed. If anyone has a concern then they will probably shrug it off because the CRB/ISA check will not have highlighted anything – and computers are never wrong are they?

And if something does go wrong and a child is abused what usually happens? An inquiry, committees are formed, discussions are carried out and the most common result is an increase the remit of the system. The fact that the abuse is an extremely unusual event and using single cases to change law just leads to bad law is totally ignored. Nothing is really learnt from the past and because of that mistakes will carry on being made.

Caedmon’s
Cat November 29, 2010 at 09:27

Can the introduction of legislation and the establishment of the now
all-pervasive CRB industry be construed as statist abuse in its own right?
Just wondering…

Bealapoizon November 29, 2010 at 08:53

I’m very late in reading your aways beautiful and clever posts I’m just
stopping by to say : Hi, carry on the good works !
This blog IS my favorite
english blog

allcoppedout
November 29, 2010 at 04:34

I’ve seen people denied jobs on CRB checks revealing material clearly
spent, and major offenders given jobs to help in rehabilitation.
This is a
typical area in which we don’t understand false complaining, risk assessment
and the ability of abusers to get round procedures – whilst we produce
legislation and procedures to protect bureaucracies after the event, instead
of doing what we can to stop opportunities for abuse.

Fabian the
Fabulous November 29, 2010 at 01:19

When I was a kid (about two generations ago) the usual advice to a children
going out without an adult was “If you need help, ask a grown-up.”
I
suppose that layer of universal child support is no longer available…
Sorry
kids, you’re on your own!
It’s a wonder more of them aren’t f@ucked up!

Dave H November 28, 2010 at 21:08

Too many people and organisations have vested interests in CRB checks to
allow them to wither away and vanish as they so richly deserve. It was never
really about safety, more about ever-tighter nanny-state control.

I’m seeking to promote an organisation to help people get cheaper car
insurance. Anyone can apply for a Safe Speed certificate provided they’ve
never been caught speeding. Said certificate will assert that the holder has
never driven a car faster than the posted speed limit, so if you’ve got one,
you should be able to persuade insurance companies that you’re a safer
insurance risk. (Spot the flaw and then apply it to CRB checks.)

I agree with Richard B about car safety – centre of the rear seat is
supposed to be safest, failing that, the passenger-side rear seat. Airbags can
be dangerous to children because if the child is sitting forward then it’s
possible that the impact will throw the child face-first into the bag while
it’s still actively exploding. Too far back and the bag will be useless.

ivan November 28, 2010 at 19:46

All child protection legislation produced in the past 13 – 14 years has
been nothing but a knee jerk reaction to MSM – particularly the Daily Fail –
made by corrupt politicians that have no moral fortitude, indeed no morals at
all, in order to be seen to be ‘doing something’ even if it is the wrong
thing.

NOTHING has been learned from all the enquiries – nor ever will be. It has
only turned the country into one in which everyone ‘passes by on the other
side of the road’ no matter who needs help, especially if a child is the one
needing help. Who in Britain today would go out of their way and invite the
law down on their heads by helping a child in trouble? I think the answer to
that is no one.

PT November 29, 2010 at 09:26

I agree with your last para. 35 years ago, I was on a crowded beach, and
a girl aged about 5 was wandering along, sobbing her heart out, obviously
looking for her family. After calming her down and telling her what I was
going to do, I put her on my shoulders so that could see further (and also
be seen) and walked the beach until, from her higher position, she saw her
parents and directed me to them. Job done.
Would I, a male, do the same
today? Not a chance. Let a woman do it; it’s less of a risk for her.

zaphod November 28, 2010 at 16:55

The judgement of those who make rules is always suspect, because they
really like rules. They always want more.
A lot of the population like
rules, too. It’s easy for us to forget that, when we hang out in the
Libertarian blog world. With enough rules, you’d never have to make a
decision!

I’ve always felt that the child-abuse panic does much more harm than good.
To children and to adults.
And to say so, invites suspicion.

Matt
W November 28, 2010 at 16:38

I’m with you on the general, but I think you’ve picked the wrong point in
the CofE guidelines.

There are huge amounts of motherhood and apple pie therein which assume
that people are zombies with no common sense – “make sure that all electric
sockets are covered” ,
but I don’t think there’s much choice given legislation. It could do with
being 75% shorter, though.

The churches are all terrified of cases happening from a reputation
viewpoint, and because such cases would routinely be used by campaigners. I
expect it may be another generation before they will even go anywhere near
debates on these issues. It’s a classic “no win” situation.

Are there any organisations with fewer and fewer padded-cell type
rules?

I’m interested that some of the suggestions mitigate *against* effective
safeguarding – “Do not make any relationship with a child (other than family
members) through a social networking site” presumably bans choirmaster
involvement in a choir Facebook group.

Joe Public November 28, 2010 at 14:31

To truly protect every youngster from the statistical majority of risk,
females should be banned from conceiving until every potential ‘relative’ has
had a successful CRB check?

Longrider November
28, 2010 at 14:14

When they brought in CRB checks fro driving instructors I was doing some
temporary work with a driving school coaching trainee driving instructors. We
had one poor chap fail his CRB check – never to work in any capacity with a
vulnerable adult or young person ever gain. His crime? When he went out
celebrating on his eighteenth birthday some years previously he got well and
truly plastered and flashed at the WPC who went to arrest him. The result
wasn’t jut a night in the cells to sober up, it was a criminal conviction for
a sex offence. So, he is now marked as a sex offender for one moment of
youthful madness.

Richard B November
28, 2010 at 13:19

Not wishing to take anything away from your main argument, but in fact it
is a good idea to put children in the back of the car whatever. US research
suggests children under 12 are about 35% less likely to die in an accident if
they are in the back (assuming correct use of seatbelts etc.). Most accidents
are frontal, and in the back they are further away from hard stuff like the
windscreen and fascia. Airbags have dangers all of their own. So the CoE
advice is good, although their reasons for it may be wrong.