procedures within the charity are already felt to be as "water-tight as possible".
These procedures are obviously not watertight at all. They have allowed further abuse of already vulnerable children to take place whilst under the protection of this charity. The positive step of closing down operations and focusing on improving its selection methods should be applauded. Such action can only be taken as symptomatic of a responsible organisation.
As far as the voluntary workers who are "distraught" at this disruption to their plans are concerned, they are faced with a choice. Either they risk exposing children who have already experienced distress and disadvantage to more of the same, or they postpone existing arrangements. I am sure that few would find the decision difficult.
Dr Patricia Hind JP
Lecturer in Psychology, City University
Chairman, Family Panel