Education

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 10° London Hi 14°C / Lo 7°C

Authors boycott schools over sex-offence register

By Chris Green

Respected British children's authors Anthony Horowitz, Philip Pullman and Michael Morpurgo object to a new government scheme that requires them to register their names on a database in case they pose a danger to children

GETTY IMAGES

Respected British children's authors Anthony Horowitz, Philip Pullman and Michael Morpurgo object to a new government scheme that requires them to register their names on a database in case they pose a danger to children

A group of respected British children's authors and illustrators will stop visiting schools from the start of the next academic year, in protest at a new government scheme that requires them to register on a database in case they pose a danger to children.

Philip Pullman, Anne Fine, Anthony Horowitz, Michael Morpurgo and Quentin Blake all told The Independent that they object to having their names on the database – which is intended to protect children from paedophiles – and would not be visiting any schools as a consequence.

Pullman, author of the fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials, described the Home Office policy as "corrosive and poisonous to every kind of healthy social interaction". He said: "I've been going into schools as an author for 20 years, and on no occasion have I ever been alone with a child. The idea that I have become more of a threat and I need to be vetted is both ludicrous and insulting. Children have never been in any danger from visiting authors or illustrators, and the idea that they should be is preposterous.

"This reinforces the culture of suspicion, fear and mistrust that underlies a great deal of present-day society. It teaches children that they should regard every adult as a potential murderer or rapist."

The Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) is being managed by the Independent Safeguarding Authority, set up after the 2002 murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells by Ian Huntley, a janitor at their school. All individuals who work with children from 12 October will be required to register with a national database for a fee of £64. The former Children's Laureate Anne Fine, the author of more than 50 books, said the scheme was "governmental idiocy" which would drive a wedge between children and adults.

"When it [the VBS] becomes essential, I shall continue to work only in foreign schools, where sanity prevails," she said. "The whole idea of vetting an adult who visits many schools, but each only for a day, and then always in the presence of other adults, is deeply offensive.

"Our children will become further impoverished by this tiresome and ill-considered scheme, and yet another gulf will be created between young people and the rest of society." Michael Morpurgo, another former Children's Laureate whose recent successes include the play War Horse, said the compulsory database of school visitors was "a nonsense" which would put writers off visiting pupils. "It's yet another example of the Government going way over the top," he said. "Writers don't go to schools for the money, they do it because they want to bring their stories to children and make readers of them.

"The notion that I should somehow have got myself tested or passed in order to do this is absurd. I know there has to be security in schools, and that's fine, but this is insulting and doesn't go any way to protecting children."

Anthony Horowitz, the author of the popular Alex Rider series of children's spy novels, said the £64 fee had "a nasty feeling of a stealth tax about it", and that, like Pullman and the others, the introduction of the database marked "the end of school visits" for him.

"Like so many of Labour's laws, it's just an ill-thought-out by-product of a general law to stop suspect people going into schools. And yet the Government doesn't seem to have either the courage or the sense to realise that they've got to make an exception here.

"A child who admires a writer has a great belief in that writer as a good human being. If you say that, actually, the guy who's writing this book could be a sick pervert and we've got to protect you from him, I think you're not exactly sending out the most positive message."

He added that the timing of the scheme was particularly baffling, as last year was the National Year of Reading, during which the Government heavily promoted the practice of authors visiting schools.

Quentin Blake, who rose to fame as Roald Dahl's illustrator and became the first ever Children's Laureate in 1999, said the Government was guilty of "grotesque misunderstanding" about what happens on school visits, and that he would refuse to pay the registration fee if he was asked.

"A lot of these people are asked to visit schools because they are known already," he said. "You don't ask Philip Pullman or Michael Morpurgo because you don't know who they are, and you don't go to the trouble of being the Children's Laureate to pay £64 to have permission to talk to children. That is bizarre."

A spokesman from the Home Office said: "The UK already has one of the most advanced systems in the world for carrying out checks on all those who work in positions of trust with children and vulnerable adults. From October this year the new Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) will ensure these regulations are even more rigorous.

"The new scheme means every individual working in a field that requires more than a tiny amount of contact with children and/or vulnerable adults will have to be vetted. If they are passed, they will be placed on a register that says they are allowed to work in a regulated field. If they are barred, they will go on a separate register and it will be a criminal offence for them to try and obtain work in a regulated field, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison. It will also be illegal for anyone to employ them."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
Why an exception...?
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 11:25 pm (UTC)
I agree with some of the points but then again consider that some authors may have lifestyles that are variance with what we consider healthy for children.

It smacks of "I'm a celebrity, therefore I am exempt..." but time and again we have seen celebrities develop unhealthy attitudes to children, William Mayne and Hal Porter are two authors that spring to mind, so no, I do not agree that just because someone is an author they should be allowed into the schools without at least a modicum of checking out.

After the failure of the state with so many children, not verifying people as they should e.g. Ian Huntley who was given a job when he had a record, we should be working hard, diligent to the extreme to make sure that our kids at least can be safe at school, think if this were the case of someone like Peter Tatchell who once advocated Man-Boy relationships and the lowering of the age of consent to something ludicrous, if you start exempting certain people then as sure as eggs are eggs, those exclusions will be targetted by those that seek to harm our kids...
Re: Why an exception...?
[info]nightside242 wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 09:11 am (UTC)
What kind of lifestyle do authors have? There are children at the school my partner teaches at in Lancashire who have prostitutes for parents and they are perfectly well-adjusted children, so an author coming in for one day who happens to like a drink or two in the evening is hardly going to present a problem.
Re: Why an exception...? - [info]colinru - Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 01:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why an exception...? - [info]ancientoneuk - Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 02:11 pm (UTC) Expand
Where will this lead to?
[info]dmannic wrote:
Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 11:40 pm (UTC)
"The new scheme means every individual working in a field that requires more than a tiny amount of contact with children... will have to be vetted."

What exactly is the definition of "tiny amount of contact"? Will a toy shop proprietor need vetting if the child stays in the shop for more than half an hour? A librarian? A park keeper?

Half of all males have a criminal record by the age of 40. At this rate no-one is going to be allowed near children, and the State might as well take them off our hands completely to turn them all into the compliant dumb little drones that they really want.

Statistically, the number of children abducted and killed each year by strangers hasn't changed in a century. What has changed is the pervasive atmosphere of fear that persuades so many to forget common sense and accept the State intruding into every aspect of child rearing.

Worth bearing in mind that most child abuse occurs within the family environment and not from visiting respected authors, although maybe I shouldn't point that out lest the State uses that as an excuse to remove all children into care (and we all know how abuse-free the children's homes are, don't we. Don't we...?).
Re: Where will this lead to?
[info]austincambridge wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 04:26 am (UTC)
"Half of all males have a criminal record by the age of 40."

Whassat? Maybe round your way, but not where I live.
[info]ourmaninferney wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 01:52 am (UTC)
As usual, this government has gone way over the top. Because a very small minority of adults presents an element of risk towards children, the other 99+% will be required to be on a database and, to add insult to injury, pay for this "privilege".

Add this to all the other "dangers" that we have scared children with, and it's a wonder any of them ever step foot outside their home. (Where, by the way, they are at most risk...)

Where is the sense of proportion in modern British society?
Stupid Educated People
[info]avraamjack wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 02:25 am (UTC)
This is the problem with smart people.

They think that they do not have to conform to whatever mass hysteria is in force at the time.

How dare they not help to reinforce our fears , suspicions and herd like reflexes.

Shameful.

.
Trust The Clown
[info]nled63 wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 03:26 am (UTC)

Just when I thought things couldn't get any worse - they got worse! This is another ploy to advance state-intrusion into the lives of private subjects. Yes, yes, arguments about "safety of children" have their relevance, no responsible adult would disagree with that, but no responsible adult would respond to the problem of paedophilia by endorsing such a hysterical & irrational piece of regulation, either.
Is the appliance of common sense now obsolete?
[info]pauljs wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 04:51 am (UTC)
While I have every right to be concerned with this matter as I have young children I think that excessive regulation is not going to help matters. I have every faith that the staff at my children's school, and those at other schools are normally capable of judging which adults, celebrity or not are allowed to interact with them.
I realise that there are prominent cases where this has not been the case such as with Ian Huntley, but in situations where, for example prominent authors are only going to be visiting schools for a day, surely it must be apparent that the chance of any harm being done to the pupils is vanishingly small.
There is possibly a need for a framework of regulation but it MUST be enforced at the senior staff's discretion, not by some Whitehall jobsworth's.
On the other hand there is perhaps room to argue that these authors could co-operate with the legislation in order to get to meet the children and help alleviate the suspicions which they perceive as being raised, maybe even take the stand that being included on a database of "safe" adults could be a positive thing. Of course there would always be a possibility of someone managing to get through the vetting procedure to be wrongly included on such a database.
On balance though my personal opinion is that yet again our leaders have used a sledgehammer to crack a nut and are reinforcing the atmosphere of fear in which we all must live in the present day UK.
Why should they be different
[info]messiou wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 05:53 am (UTC)
Being a parent I think its right that anyone going into schools and having contact with kids should have some form of vetting. Let's face it this policy is around making sure our children are safe.

Why shoudl authors be exempt, they go into schools, sometimes two to three a day when promoting a book - children look up to them, its only a matter of time before a prolific author is found to some shady past.

IF the government exempts them this wold send out a message to pedophiles and suddenly those wanting access to kids would use this as an avenue.

I think they are being pompus and ill informed about this issue - do they not want our kids to be safe!
Re: Why should they be different
[info]gacman wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 07:24 am (UTC)
Maybe as a mark of solidarity you should agree to be vetted (and pay a fee) to make sure you don't pose a risk to your children. After all why should you be different?
Re: Why should they be different - [info]mumof3york - Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 08:32 am (UTC) Expand
To its logical end - [info]gc9723 - Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 08:28 am (UTC) Expand
Re: To its logical end - [info]lexyboy - Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 09:29 am (UTC) Expand
Re: To its logical end - [info]wotulookinat - Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 10:28 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Why should they be different - [info]sjkillman - Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 03:01 pm (UTC) Expand
Brave New World
[info]hodgeey wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 05:55 am (UTC)
Only the government is fit to look after our children. Everybody else is suspect and has to be treated as a potential criminal.

The Ministry of Truth says so, so it must be true.
what the hell
[info]nickiuk wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 06:27 am (UTC)
I am an unpublished author of books where children are a major part of and I also work with vunerable adults in that i tutor NVQ IT at a centre where 18-24 year olds are taught basic skills, does this mean i will have to be vetted, I already have a CBR check to work for the company and am likely to be getting one because i also steward events where children are.

This is a joke, i hope the new government rescinds this stupid new rule and abolish the new bureau.
Re: what the hell
[info]mumof3york wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 08:36 am (UTC)
This goes beyond a CBR check?

I didn't realise that. A CBR check should be enough, surely.
Authors boycott schools over sex-offence register
[info]leminier wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 06:28 am (UTC)
Thank god that somebody has the balls to stand up to the government's obsessive and controlling behaviour. Britain went somewhat mad years ago but it is getting worse. Witch hunts in a new form are with us still!
in addition
[info]nickiuk wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 06:29 am (UTC)
In addition to my last comment, I am also a pre-op male to female trans-sexual who until now had planned on visiting local schools to teach them about us. I will not be doing that now.
Re: in addition
[info]bogwart16 wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 10:11 am (UTC)
If you're pre-op you're presumably going to be 'vetted' in due course anyway.
Re: in addition - [info]cnash1985 - Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 11:34 am (UTC) Expand
Re: in addition - [info]bogwart16 - Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 02:37 pm (UTC) Expand
Hysteria
[info]chiennoir wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 06:29 am (UTC)
These days, you can't even smile at a child without its mother thinking you're some kind of paedo. I remember 30 years ago, a child came up to me and wanted me to hold his hand while crossing the street and I did so quite happily. Now, I'd tell him to cross it himself.
No Trust
[info]humble_sparrow wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 06:36 am (UTC)
Everyone suspects everyone else and no one trusts anyone and then the state follows on our fears till their is no more freedom, just all encompassing paranoia.

Remember the old Soviet Union being like that ?
Re: No Trust
[info]lexyboy wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 09:31 am (UTC)
I don't know, I never lived there, but it sounds like America at the height of Pinko Paranoia
Re: No Trust - [info]lima_charlie - Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 10:56 pm (UTC) Expand
Increase in the number of idiots is more then the unemployment
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 06:40 am (UTC)
The teacher asked the Liza, showing the map. ?Where is Americas? Liza showed these, ?This is North America and this is South America?
Good
Anne
And who discovered America
Liza, sir.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Authors boycott schools over sex-offence register
[info]punakai wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 06:56 am (UTC)
What next - protective custody for children?

The vast majority of child abuse happens in the family and with family friends. VBS is expensive spin and window dressing that does nothing to tackle the root causes for sexual abuse: repressive unbringing, low self esteem and lack of access to high quality psychological therapies for damaged and dysfuntional adults

A survivor...
Labour Exploit Fear
[info]kaptainkitten wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 07:18 am (UTC)
It's how they have done business right from day one.

Most people can't help but give in to the fear.


Try explaining the difference between probable and possible and most will just not see it.

And so Labour win again. But as to WHY they behave like this...


I think there is a certain type of person who despises the individual, who sees the individual as a threat in fact.

Labour is a very attractive organisation for such people since Labour tend to wish to "help" people. In the guise of helping they crush and repress instead using any and all technique at hand.

Put another way, Labour is for lice.
Re: Labour Exploit Fear
[info]kitty6883 wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 12:34 pm (UTC)
It is incorrect to think this is a labour development. The conservative government fuelled fear about a whole range of things in the 80s - amongst others raves (illegal gatherings), "dangerous dogs" and video nasties.
Feel sorry for the kids
[info]bleedingekk wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 07:29 am (UTC)
We have a generation of children void of contact with adults. People these days are afraid to even look at a child. I was videoing my own 5 year old at a dinosaur centre the other day and my goodness you should have seen the looks I was getting. The press of this country have a lot to answer for when young children today grow up with communication problems. Not everyone out there is a pedophile.
Deeply dysfunctional society
[info]astrid_h wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 07:33 am (UTC)
Absolutely agree with these authors. It's not an advanced system to protect children. It's a symptom of a completely and deeply dysfunctional society. Sad, very sad indeed.
"It will also be illegal for anyone to employ them."
[info]joffa42 wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 07:52 am (UTC)
Are you sure that "It will also be illegal for anyone to employ them." (last paragraph in article) - what in any job at all ? Is this a misquote or is the Home Office spokesman barking ?

Cheers

Chris
VBS
[info]ouldbob wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 07:57 am (UTC)
All this will do is stop voluntary teachers of children, such as Boys' Brigade, Scouts, Sea Cadets: it will stop children joing choirs, bands, amateur theatre companies: imagine if you are presenting 'Oliver!' in an amateur theatre company - every adult would have to pay 64 quid before a child actor could be cast for the part.
It's nonsense, and yes, it is reminiscent of Russia under Stalin - everybody is a suspect, and those that aren't are more suspect because nobody is clean.
For Christ's sake get rid of this bloody government. It's going to take years to tear down all the idiocy they have introduced. We are the most controlled and manipulated nation in the world, - not North Korea, not Iran, - Britain. Welcome to the police state.
They do not get it
[info]billdavy1949 wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 08:03 am (UTC)
i.e. "spokesman from the Home Office".

Yet another quango (or is it two).

I do wish they had read the UNICEF report on chidlren. Our children are the unhappiest but the safest. Child rearing is now the responsibility of the lawyers (in the courts including the highest court) and look where that has got us (and US).

And yes, I think the media should shoulder some of the responsibility for the fear in society. They do not merely report it. Observing always affects the observed.
[info]ajwimble wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 08:15 am (UTC)
Of course children have to be protected from predatory adults, I think reasonable concern is rapidly turning into Paranoia. In almost all cases of child abuse the person doing the abusing is well known to the child. A parent, teacher, priest or such like. To be able to abuse a child and have any chnce of getting away with it takes a lot of time to 'groom' the child. Does the government really think that an Author, or anyone else with casual contact with a child, is really likely to abuse the child, in the company of other children and teachers and expect to get away with it.

It is reasonable that people who have long term contact with a child are vetted, particularly if they are in a position of trust that gives them the oportunity for abuse, but trying to vet everyone who has even casual contact with a child is both unneccessary and impractical.
Dysfunctional Britain
[info]respectedgraham wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 08:18 am (UTC)
What the hell is this country coming to. No wonder people are becoming paranoid, and no where else would a mob of idiots attack a paedatrician because they confused the word with paedophile. Papers like the Sun and News of the World create the impression that there is a pervert hiding behind every street corner. A few years ago the Sun condemned the actions of 'heartless' drivers because they drove by a 3 year old who had wandered out of a kindergarden and who sadly drowned in the pond of a nearby house. The sad truth is that all of these drivers were afraid of stopping in case they were observed talking to a young child.
Adults can't come to sporting days or take photographs of their own children in case they are accused of unhealthy practices, yet the UK has the worst record of dysfunctional behaviour in Europe. With all these laws and regulations an unhealthy atmosphere is developing in Society which when compared to life in Scandinavia and Holland, Italy and Spain should not be encouraged.
[info]mumof3york wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 08:19 am (UTC)
Before I can act as a parent helper at my child's primary school, I must have a police check done. Like these authors, I'd only be spending an hour a week in class, helping with art projects etc.

I think this is fair though and I'm happy to do it. Its a requirement than anyone working with children have a police check carried out.

Its not a database of paedophiles. Its a list of children's authors who have had police checks, in line with other people who work with children. Teachers can then arrange visits from authors by accessing the database. it also helps teachers identify which writers are happy to make visits.

I think the problem here is that people don't like having their names on a database, in case their name or identity is abused.

I think also our society is overly obsessed with paedophilia and we mustn't let this extreme fear limit children's enjoyment of life and richness of life.

However, at the same time, it does make sense to check people who work with children, so overall I think these checks are ok.

[info]marwood55 wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 08:54 am (UTC)
The checks seem tremendously heavy handed. What's more, an employer can now follow your 'status' on the database - kind of like a paedo facebook - to see whether you're a threat. The problem is, the database only says whether you're allowed to work with children/vulnerable adults or not - so if you decide not to be on the list or decide to not continue it can have the effect of making look as guilty as sin. If you sign up, then by God you better stay on the list for fear of arrousing suspicion!

The scheme will make EVERYONE who has even the smallest (and in some cases non-existent) contact with kids register (covering 11.5 million adults) - think school gardeners etc.

As has been said, this is great news for creating generations of citizens who grow up with massive fear and suspicion of anyone older.
(no subject) - [info]mumof3york - Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 09:14 am (UTC) Expand
Factual error in this story
[info]cmain wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 08:47 am (UTC)
Ian Huntley was NOT the janitor of the school Holly and Jessica attended.

They attended junior school, Huntley was caretaker of the secondary school. Huntley's employment was NOT a contributory factor in the murder of the girls. Even if he had been barred from working at the secondary school, he would not have been barred from living with Maxine Carr, which was the reason he had the trust of the girls.

These measures are being brought in on a false pretext.
Lessons from Soham
[info]kerrygold wrote:
Thursday, 16 July 2009 at 12:46 pm (UTC)
The lesson from Soham is that the police had the information about Huntley but refused to share it because of the Data Protection Act and Human Rights legislation as they understood it. This has nothing to do with that and is just another money making scheme.
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Most popular