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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.