This post has turned into a bit of an epic – I apologise. This stuff needs saying.
The more I read about the ISA, the more anxious I’m becoming. ISA stands for Independent Safeguarding Authority, and are a Quango with the job of deciding whether or not people should go into the “Child’s list” and/or the “Adult’s list.”
If your name appears in these lists, you are barred from working with children or vulnerable adults either on a professional or voluntary basis. End of story.
Quote, “it is not a punitive sanction. It’s a proactive measure to protect children and vulnerable adults.” Oh, that’s alright then. So say I submit myself to the ISA for vetting and they decide to bar me, and I have to go to all the other parents and admit to them that I’ve been blacklisted so, you know, sorry, I can’t give your kids a lift to footie anymore…. they’ll be sympathetic and understanding to my unlucky run-in with a paranoid, faceless state will they? I doubt it. Rumours will spread that I’m obviously totally dodgy, probably a paedophile, too – I mean, the Safeguarding Authority must have had a good reason to ban me, right? No smoke without fire?
Yet smoke is what the ISA are using to come up with their decisions. You see the problem?
In the olden days, if you were convicted of certain offences you would go on the Sex Offender’s register. This would prevent you working with children or vulnerable adults. Fair enough. I have no particular interest in the employment opportunities available to rapists and the like. Their liberty can legitimately be interfered with.
But the new system is more much comprehensive. It’s not just convicted criminals. I’ve read the guidelines for the Safeguarding Authority and I’m reasonably certain virtually everyone meets the standard required to be blacklisted, should they choose.
The Safeguarding Authority are looking for events with ‘relevant conduct’ – awful jargon – which means they’re looking for reports of ‘abusive’ behaviour (and one can argue quite convincingly ‘politically incorrect’ behaviour), irrespective of whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. Been on the Jeremy Kyle show? Had an unfavourable story printed about you in the Metro? Someone written about you on the internet? Ever pissed off a social worker? Importantly, has anyone made any complaints about you to the police or the council, whether or not you went to trial?
In stage one, they’re not interested in whether or not the event happened. They simply check whether or not the reported behaviour meets the criteria they’re looking for.
So let’s see what this includes (even the list listed is listed as ‘non exhaustive’ by the way)
Any remark or comment by others that causes distress
Whoa. Any remark? Explain further, please:
Demeaning, disrespectful, humiliating, racist, sexist….
I think I see where they’re going with this…
… or sarcastic comments.
Whoa. Sarcasm? Really?
Excessive or unwanted familiarity, shouting, swearing, name-calling.
Okay, so I’ve gone through their list of ‘relevant conduct’ and picked out the bit we’re all guilty of at one time or another. We all have our bad days, our weak moments… but sarcasm? Being disrespectful? Shouting? If you haven’t, then congratulations. For the rest of us, we need to hope the Safeguarding Authority haven’t heard about our ‘abusive’ behavior.
“But!” you’re saying, “Just being sarcastic towards a kid isn’t enough reason to get blacklisted is it?”
I sympathise, but the guidelines continue:
Experience…
Translation: “Anecdote”
…. indicates that it is unusual for abuse to manifest itself in only one harm category. It can be expected that evidence of a combination of these behaviours will be apparent in more serious cases.
In other words, if you’re guilty of one category of abuse, in this case ‘verbal’ abuse it’s more likely than not that you’ve also committed other crimes of abuse in the emotional/psychological, physical, sexual or neglect categories.
Speaking of which, here’s the Safeguarding Authority’s ‘examples’ of Emotional/Psychological abuse against vulnerable adults:
Inflexible regimes and lack of choice
Ha.
Mocking, coercing, denying privacy, threatening behaviour.
Can you feel that? That’s your irony meter going off the scale.
… bullying, intimidation, harassment
That’s it. Head exploded. All of these things are, of course, terrible – except when it’s the Government doing it to us to protect the beautiful, cute little children (the Maddy McCanns of this world). Quite where this insanity copes with the demonisation and scapegoating of children who hang around outside off-licences because their parents are smack heads and drunks is a question I leave for another day. In terms of ‘easy wins’ protecting children, wouldn’t those sorts of children seem like a better place to start, rather than affording even more “protection” to the nice, middle class kids who participate in lots of extra-curricular activities?
Or is that just me? Are my priorities screwed up?
So let’s say they’ve found out about something you did once and have decided it’s ‘relevant conduct’ – they then need to make a decision about whether they reckon it’s really happened, and the test for this? It’s the balance of probabilities. Not beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, that’s the point – the point of the ISA is to ban people from working with children who can’t be proved to be guilty of anything (the law is such a pain for politicians, isn’t it?)…. otherwise, if you think about it, the ISA wouldn’t be necessary. It’s the Department Of Gossip, Innuendo and Hearsay.
So the Safeguarding Authority have decided an event is relevant and they’ve then agreed amongst themselves that it probably happened. At this point they’re supposed to blacklist you, but first – lucky you – you get to explain to them why you shouldn’t be added. If you don’t turn up, you’re added automatically. If you fuck up your defence – by that I mean fail to prove that the event didn’t really happen – then you’re blacklisted.
It gets worse, by the way – sorry.
Even if someone has been found Not Guilty by a jury, you must always remember that, at most, this means is that [sic] the court did not find that someone did something “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Nope. It means they’re legally innocent, because in the UK we have a principle known as Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Well, we did.
The test applied by the ISA in relation to barring considerations is cause for concern.
Nice, but this next bit made me gasp in horror:
If in doubt, you should consult your line manager.
And my favourite bit of all:
If it is found that the evidence demonstrates on the balance of probabilities that an event happened, then that is treated as a “finding of fact”. However, even if it doesn’t, the evidence may still be highly relevant in the context of the “risk of harm” powers.
In other words, hey, look, even if something probably didn’t happen, you should still consider it anyway. After all, where there’s smoke there’s fire, right. And remember:
If in doubt, you should consult your Line Manager.
Summing up then, this is the proverbial line in the sand. This is the ‘far’ in ‘too far.’ I propose a mass boycott, mass civil disobedience – simply refuse to submit yourself. Refuse to ask for ISA approval, too. This thing needs to be fought, and fought hard.
If you’re in any doubt, try to figure out what you might say to other people if you submitted yourself for vetting and found yourself barred and realise you’re in for a few decades of pure hell trying to clear your name (and being put into the same category as sex offenders as a danger to children and vulnerable adults).
If you know of any organisations or campaigns against this, please can you link them in the comments and I’ll try to do another post later summing up the major points of opposition. But seriously, if you’ve been storing up a bit of civil disobedience for something too appalling to suffer, this is your moment.
Ian B said...
13 Sep 09 at 6:20 am
In the olden days, if you were convicted of certain offences you would go on the Sex Offender’s register.
Actually, in the olden days we didn’t have that either.
Chunter said...
13 Sep 09 at 7:01 am
The scheme is based on very dodgy foundations. It would not have prevented Ian Huntley, the caretaker at Soham Community College, from getting to know his victims, who attended St Andrew’s Primary, where his girlfriend worked.
Ian B said...
13 Sep 09 at 7:22 am
After the next Daily Mail-blazing crime- the death of another one or two photogenic kids at the hands of somebody already on the ISA crypto-paedophile register, it will be a simple matter to make it a criminal offence for anyone on the register to interact with children in any way. Since that will require some means of warning children which adults are officially unsafe, expect some kind of obligatory badge, armband or “paedo” tattooed on foreheands, kind of thing.
To prevent crypto-paedophiles creating their own victims, expect some kind of state breeding license, which will require state authorisation before an individual can breed. Since this will be hard to police, compulsory sterilisations will be seen as the practical solution.
Thus we approach, in steps, the old Progressive Dream of eugenic control of the race.
Oranjepan said...
13 Sep 09 at 7:54 am
I wonder what the qualifications are to be a line manager in this august body? How should potential applicants be vetted?
Hmm, anyway, they clearly haven’t thought this through properly as there would seem to be plenty of potential conflicts with human rights legislation… who safeguards us from overweening and intrusive bureaucracy?
Caron said...
13 Sep 09 at 8:02 am
I wrote about this the other day as an overanxious mum and I found this scheme to be very scary indeed as well as ineffective. I cited the example of how potentially someone who is now in his mid 30s could be barred from driving his daugther and their friends to hockey matches because 20 years ago when he was just 16, he got his couple of months younger girlfriend pregnant.
Thanks for going through these guidelines with a fine tooth comb, and spending all night doing it.
It makes me wonder if I could be rendered unsuitable for working with children because I occasionally allow my child to read selected posts on right wing blogs which have swearing in them as well as material that could be deemed offensive.
I’m going to do a quick update with some comments I’ve received on Facebook about my oosting and you can be sure I’ll be linking to this. Excellent stuff.
Heresiarch said...
13 Sep 09 at 8:57 am
A blinder of a post, Charlotte. The trouble is, very few people are going to take the trouble to read the guidelines. Most still seem to think this is a souped-up Criminal Records Bureau.
Costigan Quist said...
13 Sep 09 at 9:05 am
A different take on this at the Cafe http://bit.ly/gB3K
irdial said...
13 Sep 09 at 10:25 am
The first people who are going to sign up to this – willingly – are the very criminals that the government supposedly wants to stop. Since CRB checks and this new ISA cannot prevent crime or detect someone’s intent, it is totally useless in protecting people. The criminals know this. They know that if they have never been caught, that this ISA system will provide them with trusted access to their prey.
That is the central flaw in all of these vetting systems, and as we have seen recently with the arrests of CRB checked nursery worker paedophiles, no amount of vetting can prevent these people from operating, and in fact, they use these checks as a means of getting unfettered access.
Finally, the ISA is a way to get millions of people into the NIR and ID Card trap. I agree that everyone, including teachers (who have already been CRB checked, and who do not need this extra useless layer) and anyone who currently has to suffer a CRB check should point blank refuse to register with the ISA. ‘Kill it with fire’ – if no one registers for it, it will have to die, since the activities we are doing need to continue and will not stop because no one is registering. Also, they are not going to risk a massive rebellion by prosecuting people who are already CRB checked, like teachers. Preachers and other religious people should refuse on principle also, and YES Vicars and Nuns are required to register with the ISA.
This really is the LAST STRAW!
Nicholas Lowe said...
13 Sep 09 at 10:51 am
There is a facebook group started.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=158098131349
Tristan said...
13 Sep 09 at 11:18 am
Inflexible regimes and lack of choice
Doesn’t that describe social services and ISA itself?
Fearless Frank said...
13 Sep 09 at 12:05 pm
Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?
It is (or used to be) fundamental to English law. Has it been abandoned?
Ian B said...
13 Sep 09 at 12:26 pm
Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?
It is (or used to be) fundamental to English law. Has it been abandoned?
Yes.
Dad Who Writes said...
13 Sep 09 at 2:17 pm
Great post. Half the things on my blog probably disqualify me – swearing, sarcasm, intolerance of others (I’m old-fashioned – I don’t believe in tolerating stupidity and bigotry). And what happens if they list – are your own children suddenly ‘at risk’? as if the poor, beleaguered, over-stretched profession of social worker hadn’t got enough paperwork…
Christ, I’m ashamed to think I campaigned for this petty little party of Daily Mail lapdogs
Stacey Riley said...
13 Sep 09 at 3:19 pm
Thanks for writing this. I’m a tutor and this scares me. I consider myself a Pagan and I work with tarot cards. Does that now make me a suitable tutor, although neither of these things affect my work in the classroom.
Will writing this comment be seen as an admission of guilt.
willc said...
13 Sep 09 at 3:34 pm
Inoculate our children against “potentially harmful” diseases,quarantine them in bubblewrap with a label stating their name,DOB & a not to be opened before date of at least 21 years.An exclusion claus of;we cannot be held responsible for losses would apply.Better still a childless society would be more advantageous.Ermm who would undo the bubblewrap?.
Outraged of Swindon said...
13 Sep 09 at 4:13 pm
Graham Badman recommends in his charter for paedophiles that home educated children as young as five be taken off to be questioned ALONE (without their parent(s) or any other trusted adult!). The head of the Department of Children Schools and Families Ed Balls agreed with this the day it was published.
I’d be looking into their backgrounds if I were Scotland Yard.
Outraged
David Davis_libertarian Alliance said...
13 Sep 09 at 9:54 pm
Perhaps we ought to identify people working for the ISA, and kill and smoke them, joint by joint, and eat them as fast as we can.
The question we really need to ask is what kind of human being either volunteers for this work, or consciously thinks he/she wants to work in such a department of State? It is actually, to me, quite scary. Rather like how many, many many thousands of _Austrians_ were found in 1945 to be or to have been working as extermination-camp-guards and prisoner-stripping-staff.
It is scary to think that the _British_ might be able to stump up enough people to man (to “person?”) such an organisation. I cannot quit ebelieve that they would get enough employees, but then I could sadly be wrong. After all, the (British) Police on the Channel Islands did hand the (6?) Jews present to the Gestapo, in about, er, 1941.
Henry North London said...
13 Sep 09 at 10:31 pm
Have you seen the scary youtubes on my blog?
Its what the populace will ask for
Old Hack said...
14 Sep 09 at 9:40 am
The other side of the coin is that the ISA is completely useless.
As someone who bears responsibility to seeing volunteers are registered with the ISA, at the risk of a £5,000 fine if I don’t, I have been told:
I still have to CRB check volunteers as well.
Registration with the ISA is no guarantee that a person is safe to work with vulnerable people.
In other words the ISA will take absolutely no responsibility for anything at all, except for fining people who don’t co-operate with it.
Do Not Thow Stones At This Notice.
Yet it is going to be incredibly intrusive.
As far as the civil liberties issues go, this makes the old Poll Tax look like the Storming of the Bastille.
It must the final nail in the Government’s coffin (like they need another nail).
Letters From A Tory said...
14 Sep 09 at 10:21 am
Wait a minute, wait a minute…. Are the Government saying that if a dad is seen shouting and yelling from the touchline at their child’s football match that they are likely to be sexually abusing their children at home?
Talk about twisted.
Rankersbo said...
14 Sep 09 at 11:29 am
I think this has come from the sort of numpty that finds filling in a reasonably simple form ‘ard wirk.
What they wanted was whenether they took on a new role, or joined a club that required them to be safe to be within 100 yards of kids, was to be able to hand over a number which would have given the organisation permission to have a CRB disclosure without all that onerous form-filling.
In response to this we get the ISA, which like ID cards is over the top, and while making lives easier for a small number of people, makes it harder for many many more. And like ID cards it makes no-one safer.
Does it Matter who I am? said...
14 Sep 09 at 1:41 pm
Well said. As Heresiarch says, too few actually know what the legislation and ISA guidelines say. Even worse is the lack of imagination as to how they will be abused. Keep on to this, please. It’s too deeply serious to be allowed to drift off quietly as the next ‘Shock!, Horror!’ item fills the MSM agenda.
David R said...
14 Sep 09 at 6:53 pm
Let me make first make it clear that I am strongly against this damned silly registration scheme. It won’t safeguard people and it takes money away from where it could actually do some good.
In terms of child abuse the greatest risk does not come from people driving groups of kids to the school or other voluntary activities. Biggest risk comes from stepfathers and yet I see no proposals for their registration or to make it more difficult to become a stepfather.
Having said that some of your points are unfair which sadly detracts from your case.
“Experience…
Translation: “Anecdote”
…. indicates that it is unusual for abuse to manifest itself in only one harm category. It can be expected that evidence of a combination of these behaviours will be apparent in more serious cases.
In other words, if you’re guilty of one category of abuse, in this case ‘verbal’ abuse it’s more likely than not that you’ve also committed other crimes of abuse in the emotional/psychological, physical, sexual or neglect categories.”
I think you are misinterpreting this. I think that it is saying that you would expect there to be examples in more than one harm category for a person to be considered a risk. Also this is not just anecdote. I have worked as a solicitor for child protection departments for quite a few years now and it is very unusual for an abuser to fall into one category alone.
“Inflexible regimes and lack of choice
Ha.
Mocking, coercing, denying privacy, threatening behaviour.
Can you feel that? That’s your irony meter going off the scale.
… bullying, intimidation, harassment”
Hmm. Lets consider an elderly woman with restricted mobility whose “carer” only allows her to go to the toilet at times convenient to the “carer” and who as a consequence has to sit for periods in her own urine and faeces. That is what an inflexible regime and lack of choice is.
And when the “carer” finds the woman in her soiled clothes she makes fun of her telling her what a big baby she is because only babies soil themselves. That’s mockery.
And when the “carer” tells the woman how she won’t get any food if she tells anyone about it that is threatening behaviour.
Is your irony meter still going off the scale?
Then on the Finding of Facts issue. There is no way that an administrative body like the ISA should be determining matters of fact. However, what I think you are losing sight of (or possibly never knew) is that Findings of Fact made by the Family Courts are one of the most important determinants of risk going. Consider this scenario. A 6 month old baby suffers a skull fracture. Medical evidence says that it is definitely a non-accidental injury (NAI). Could have been done by mother, could have been done by stepfather. It is never going to go anywhere a criminal court as police will never be able to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt which one of them did it. It can however go to a Family Court for it to be determined on the balance of probability (which is the standard of proof in the civil courts) which one did it and to exonerate the other. Because the alternative to the Family court determining it on the balance of probability is that both mother and boyfriend have the cloud of suspicion hanging over them for the rest of their lives.
I am sure that you had great fun writing this post but I think that your enjoyment sabotaged your ability to analyse the issues. There is more than enough wrong with the ISA for there to be no need to set up straw men.
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Sep 09 at 7:03 pm
You know, I’m not completely unaware that I probably tried too hard with this one (and could have been a bit sharper editing) but:
Isn’t really fair – I’m quoting from their own guidelines. You’d *think* that what it says, but it does not. I mocked, “Experience” as a lazy way of pointing out that experience is not the same as evidence.
But yes, making light of the sort of suffering that the legislation is trying to prevent isn’t very clever – not least because it allows people to paint opponents of their ISA as uncaring. Hmm.
frank said...
14 Sep 09 at 8:10 pm
well, doesn’t this sound like a terribly good idea?
oh, shit.
Jack Hughes said...
15 Sep 09 at 5:41 am
Here is the gubmint deciding what people are instead of looking at what people have done.
Jack Hughes said...
15 Sep 09 at 5:45 am
@David R
I’ll raise you, dude.
I’ve worked in child protection departments, Family Courts, and I sponsor a child in Africa.
I care more than you.
Andy said...
15 Sep 09 at 8:49 am
David,R.
The issue isn’t about genuine instances such as that which you have given, but more about how poorly drafted the legislation and guidelines are. All the examples listed in the post are things which any parent could have done, shouted at the child, grounding them, depriving them of privileges etc..
Surely, as a solicitor, you realise that whilst giving the example of an elderly person sitting in their own waste and citing it as one example of “Inflexible and offering lack of choice”, that the same criteria of “Inflexible and offering lack of choice” also applies to me telling my daughter you can’t go out until you’ve finished your homework?
Andy.
David R said...
15 Sep 09 at 5:57 pm
“I’ll raise you, dude.
I’ve worked in child protection departments, Family Courts, and I sponsor a child in Africa.
I care more than you.”
Jack,
That would have been a devastating response if any part of my comments rested on the argument that I cared more than others. But they didn’t.
Andy,
Much more interesting point.
Charlotte quotes the ISA’s examples of Emotional/Psychological abuse of vulnerable adults (interpolated with her own comments) as being: -
“Inflexible regimes and lack of choice
Ha.
Mocking, coercing, denying privacy, threatening behaviour.
Can you feel that? That’s your irony meter going off the scale.
… bullying, intimidation, harassment”
She has missed out some. The full list of examples from the ISA guidelines is:-
“Inflexible regimes and lack of choice. Mocking, coercing, denying privacy, threatening behaviour, bullying, intimidation, harassment, deliberate isolation, deprivation.”
But that set of examples appears in a table. For the examples quoted by Charlotte the row was:
Column 1 – “Type of Harm to vulnerable adult” – Emotional/Psychological
Column 2 – “Meaning” – “Action or inaction by others that causes mental anguish”
Column 3 – Examples (as set out above)
So the criteria for the ISA (in this particular category) is that a vulnerable adult has suffered emotional/psychological harm as a result of an action or inaction by others that caused mental anguish to that vulnerable adult. All the examples are just that, examples of the criteria. They are not the criteria.
Therefore the propositions in the list of examples should really be read as (for instance) -
- an inflexible regime and lack of choice that by inaction or action caused mental anguish to a vulnerable adult
- mockery that caused mental anguish to a vulnerable adult
- deprivation that by action or inaction that caused mental anguish to a vulnerable adult
And so on.
Now however much of a drama queen your average teenager is no-one is going to give any credence to any claim that he/she has been caused mental anguish by being grounded, by being denied privileges or by being told to do his/her homework .
So the guidelines do distinguish between what is, and what is not, abuse.
John Scott said...
15 Sep 09 at 7:10 pm
Just a thought – how does one turn informer?
There’s a general election coming up. Just think of all the ministers (and other MPs) who will want to visit schools/youth groups to show they care.
Aside from Charlotte’s point about inflexible regimes and lack of choice…
Let’s see:
“Any remark or comment by others that causes distress” – that covers any time a politician tells me that they know how to run my life better than me.
“Demeaning, disrespectful” – again, any politician telling me they know best.
“Excessive or unwanted familiarity, shouting” – that’s caught “Just call me Dave” Cameron and anyone who attends PMQs.
That looks like more or less any MP, environmentalist or member of the BMA is going to meet most of these criteria.
Go on, let’s report the lot of them. At the worst we can then raise FoI issues about interpreting the guidance. Ideally we slow the whole machinery down so much that it breaks and we shame the politicians into realising their stupidity.
Does it Matter who I am said...
15 Sep 09 at 8:49 pm
David R
If I may quote you: ‘So the guidelines do distinguish between what is, and what is not, abuse.’
You say that you are a solicitor
You sound like a solicitor
You write like a solicitor
You reason like a solicitor
A lot of the problem here is that most people are not not solicitors, most of them can’t reason like solicitors or differentiate like solicitors and, though it grieves me to say it, most of them are even more bonkers than solicitors. Having worked in Social Care organisations and observed others who do, I can assure you that that is true there too.
Anonymous said...
16 Sep 09 at 8:20 am
“If it is found that the evidence demonstrates on the balance of probabilities that an event happened, then that is treated as a “finding of fact”. However, even if it doesn’t, the evidence may still be highly relevant in the context of the “risk of harm” powers.
In other words, hey, look, even if something probably didn’t happen, you should still consider it anyway. After all, where there’s smoke there’s fire, right.”
Does that mean we can call up and accuse Gordon Brown and the Cabinet of something? It’ll never get anywhere, but by their own rules they’ll have to consider it before they’re allowed in schools on the campaign trail.
Although he probably already falls under the
“shouting, swearing, name-calling.” category
Rob101 said...
16 Sep 09 at 1:05 pm
So, a drone at the ISA has some anonymous denunciations about people, and as the “balance of probabilities” is quite fine they go to see their line manager, as per the procedures.
You are the line manager. You are faced with a choice – include or exclude.
If you exclude and the person actually turns out to be a “filthy paedo”, there is a chance your name will be all over the papers with opportunist politicians calling for your head. The odds are low, of course.
If you include, you have no personal consequences whatsoever. None. If the person is dodgy, you are OK. If the person is innocent, yet is ostracised by their neighbours, driven from their home, beaten up by the mob, you are OK.
What are you going to do? You are going to cover your arse. You are going to cover your arse every second of the day. The only cases you are going to reject are the ones which are false beyond reasonable doubt.
Of the eleven million to be checked (stop a moment to savour that number, eleven million, the ISA’s own estimate) a very large number indeed are going to be branded through malicious gossip and ISA errors.
This is going to be a colossal, colossal fuck-up. However, in a culture which allows something as terrible as Operation Ore to pass virtually unnoticed, will it be the scandal it deserves to be?
Rob101 said...
16 Sep 09 at 1:14 pm
“Any remark or comment by others that causes distress”
Someone reports that you said to a 16yr old that they were never going to play football for England. You said it sarcastically but not maliciously. They were upset (irrationally).
That passes two criteria of the ISA – causing distress and sarcasm. It passes their test. Now you have to rely on the ISA drone not being an utter bastard. He/she can blacklist you and there is nothing you can do about it. You can appeal (to the ISA, of course!), but they can reasonably point out that you fulfill the legal criteria for going on the list. You are now banned from working or associating with children or young adults. You are ‘dodgy’.
This is a terrible and powerful tool to place in the hands of an all-powerful state body. To support the ISA you have to have a blind faith in the benevolence of the State, that the organisation or individuals within it will not abuse their position, or that the public will not abuse the power to slander their enemies. You don’t have to be cynical or a pessimist to see that this is criminally wishful thinking, simply think about human nature.
Jack Hughes said...
17 Sep 09 at 1:11 am
The problem with the lawyer bloke is that he thinks like a lawyer.
The original ‘problem’ that triggered this bandwagon was the Soham murders.
‘Something must be done!!’ and lawyers got to decide what ‘something’ looks like. Presto – it’s some new laws.
If only they’d got some statisticians to look at the problem. The stats experts would have said that freak events like that will probably happen every 7-10 years – just like giant waves in the sea. No way to stop them.
Likewise if they’d got some web designers to look at the problem then the answer would look like a new website and if they’d got clothing companies then the answer would be compulsory anti-murder clothes for children and compulsory anti-paedo clothes for adults.
One other thing: this new agency will have to check on women as well for PC reasons. What a waste of time. Women are not sadistic paedos.
Steve L said...
17 Sep 09 at 12:15 pm
When this was discussed and debated on radio last week, the only real question that was being addressed was who would be covered by the ISA requirement. Clearly, the far more dangerous aspect is the was the ISA works, the criteria they use, the sources they use. For goodness’ sake, it seems that even from their own published guidelines they will include rumour as a source! Why hasn’t this been picked up and addressed by the media?
sweetpea said...
1 Jul 10 at 9:44 pm
sorry am going to swear but what the fuck were they thinking of???? this situation of hearsay and the isa is intrusive and quite frankly another form of dictatorship !!! if we all had crbs were hear say is admisssible would any of us be alound near our own kids??? it makes my blood boil !!
Structured Investments said...
16 Jul 10 at 4:11 pm
When this was discussed and debated on wireless stylish period, the only real enquiry that was existence addressed was who would be strewn by the ISA requirement. Clearly, the far writer unsafe scene is the was the ISA mechanism, the criteria they use, the sources they use. For goodness’ welfare, it seems that flat from their own published guidelines they leave permit bruit as a source! Why hasn’t this been picked up and addressed by the media?