Slashdot Mirror
UK Authorities Ban 'Lonely' People From Working With Children
A UK government organization, The Independent Safeguarding Authority, has started a new anti-paedophile database that takes into account lifestyles, relationships and beliefs when assessing the backgrounds of applicants, instead of just the usual criminal record check. The new guidelines allow the agency to consider unproven allegations made in newspaper reports, allegations from members of the public, as well as monitoring internet chatrooms and websites such as Facebook for evidence to use against applicants. Anyone judged to be a danger because of things like having no friends, or having a complicated private life, is banned from working with children, the homeless, or the elderly.
Since this is in Idle and only three poeple are gonna read it I can't be bothered to find a reference, but I read an interview a while ago with a head teacher who was well liked and generally respected - that is, until someone made an allegation of sexual indecency or some such against him. They later admitted it was a complete fabrication, and so the guy went to court to have the whole thing wiped from his record so he could work with kids again. The judge basically said that it was clear he was innocent, the allegations had made no sense, there were witnesses who saw them in different places at the time it was meant to have happened etcetera, but that innocence has nothing to do with it. The law says that suspicions must be logged, and that means that any school that hired him would be liable to all sorts of lawyering, and probably lose its liability insurance and stuff.
Fascinating extra fact: children (and adults, for that matter) are much more likely to be sexually assaulted, kidnapped and murdered by close relatives or family friends than random loners. By the logic most people seem to use these days, that means children should be removed from their parents at birth, and rotated between foster carers every fortnight.
Be smart, help people!
For non UK readers, you need to be a little cautious with this typical slashdot attention grabbing headline. The newspaper quoted is the right-wing Daily Telegraph often referred to as the newspaper of the Tory (Conservative) Party, the party in opposition. It will generally pick a fight with any legislation put up by the current nominally left wing government. It's probably worth reading the article carefully and picking out the "could"'s and "maybe"'s and other similar phrases. So when they talk about subjective evidence maybe being used, you have to bear in mind this is what judges do in legal cases anyway.
The irony being noted in the UK about the media cries against this legislation (further checking of people who might work with children) is that it came about partly because the very same newspapers made a lot of noise a few years ago when a couple of children were tragically killed by an unstable person who had a job working with children and hadn't been identified by the vetting processes at the time. The media shouted loudly that "something should be done" and "more checks need to be put in place to stop this happening again". And now the government has agreed and proposed for more checks, the same papers are crying "nanny state, too much bureaucracy!". Ironic.