Sir, The Criminal Records Bureau was set up as a “one-stop shop”, not just for education, but for all those working with children and vulnerable adults throughout society. It refers to all the existing lists as well as recording convictions, cautions and non-conviction information where relevant.
The real problem lies not in establishing the facts of a person’s background; tools for this are already in place. It lies rather in the interpretation of these facts to assess a person’s possible future risk to vulnerable people. Most employers are expert neither in the investigation and prosecution of offenders, nor in understanding the implications of various offences which may appear on a CRB disclosure document.
How would they know, for instance, that a caution for underage sex with a 15-year-old girl, explained away so mildly by some offenders, could in fact mask a rape allegation where the victim was too traumatised to attend court? This is the offence which would have appeared on Ian Huntley’s CRB disclosure, had the relevant police force provided the relevant non-conviction information.
Those with first-hand knowledge of the victims, the offenders and the criminal justice system must surely be consulted by employers if we are to rely on our CRB system to prevent abuse of the vulnerable by those into whose care we entrust them.
Advertisement
PENNY NICHOLSON
Former Detective Sergeant, West Mercia Police, and National Child Protection Officer for the Catholic Church
Sir, It is pointless to try to devise a hierarchy of sin for teachers who have committed sex offences. The issue, surely, is that they have breached the code of conduct of their profession, and the trust of both their employers and their “customers”. This is a serious matter, and it applies to all professions, as in the case of the policeman dismissed because his “behaviour has fallen short of the standard expected” and the dentist who, having “let her unqualified boyfriend wreak havoc on patients’ teeth”, was struck off (reports, Jan 17).
Why waste ministerial time and public money on dealing with appeals and pleading special cases for teachers? It doesn’t seem unreasonable to insist that they seek a change of career.
DR LIZ WILLETTS
West Kilbride, Ayrshire
Advertisement
Sir, As David Aaronovitch points out (Comment, Jan 17), what is extraordinary about the Government’s paedophile panic is that here is a practical policy that is not only fair and humane, but that also seems to work.
As far as we know, none of the “offenders” who have been allowed to teach have offended again. It seems possible that at least one or two of them have been good teachers and thus benefited the children they have worked with. Similarly, the offenders themselves have probably benefited from being given a second chance and gainful employment. What more could anyone want from Government?
Where Government is at fault, however, is that it is largely responsible for the hysteria that surrounds paedophilia in the first place. The facts are simple: the level of child abuse by strangers has been remarkably constant over the past 50 years or so. The introduction of the internet has not increased it, and the sex offenders register and List 99 have not decreased it. Paedophilia, particularly the serious offences, is rare and appears to be a compulsion rather than a choice.
Over the years, however, local and central government have allowed the perceived danger in the mind of the public to grow out of all proportion to the real danger. The BBC’s recent and brave documentary on the Rochester satanic abuse case is an example of where this has led.
Advertisement
Children are not best served by being brought up or educated in a climate of fear and suspicion. Let us recognise good government and common sense, and row back from hysteria.
TIM HAMMOND
London SW6