Thursday, December 18, 2003
Too close to home?
After the Soham murder trial and guilty verdict, the press are feeding public calls for 'more to be done' to protect the innocent - and why not? Yet we have to balance this call with a practical and a personal perspective - not every discussion the Police have can be committed to computer, and so not every suspicion, thought or allegation about people will be captured. And nor should it. The law is unclear on this anyway - see the BBC story on this. There is a privacy issue, and a sense issue. Privacy, because we should have aright to measure of protection within our personal lives. Sense, because why should unfounded and unproven allegations that may come from mischevious sources as well as valid ones have the ability to wreck lives with little or no comeback. And sense, because the police have not enough resources as it is, let alone be asked to put all information on record straight away. And because we do not have the computer systems and algorithms to effectively cross-check and match all the information, even if it were there.
I work with children, I've had my police check done. I also work with a lot of other colleagues who work with children, who've had their checks done - and we ensure that we all know where the boundaries are and that we don't cross them. And it can be hard. If you're a late teens, suntanned windsurfing instructor, and one of your pupils comes on to you, you may find it hard to say no. Especially when they're 18 or 19 and in summer love. But professionalism, the awareness of your peers, and the system in which you work all play a part. Now, whilst I'm no longer late teens, it has happened to me, and still happens (and, I'll bet on it, will continue to happen!) but we cannot expect that any new system of police checks is the only answer. We all share an ongoing responsibility; we need official checks to moderate the people who have relatively free access to children, and we need to look at the systems that we all operate within to check that those systems have ongoing peer checks and balances built in.
But most children are harmed by family members, or people they know, not strangers at all. Perhaps we should check on all them first, as that is where the greatest danger lies?
After the Soham murder trial and guilty verdict, the press are feeding public calls for 'more to be done' to protect the innocent - and why not? Yet we have to balance this call with a practical and a personal perspective - not every discussion the Police have can be committed to computer, and so not every suspicion, thought or allegation about people will be captured. And nor should it. The law is unclear on this anyway - see the BBC story on this. There is a privacy issue, and a sense issue. Privacy, because we should have aright to measure of protection within our personal lives. Sense, because why should unfounded and unproven allegations that may come from mischevious sources as well as valid ones have the ability to wreck lives with little or no comeback. And sense, because the police have not enough resources as it is, let alone be asked to put all information on record straight away. And because we do not have the computer systems and algorithms to effectively cross-check and match all the information, even if it were there.
I work with children, I've had my police check done. I also work with a lot of other colleagues who work with children, who've had their checks done - and we ensure that we all know where the boundaries are and that we don't cross them. And it can be hard. If you're a late teens, suntanned windsurfing instructor, and one of your pupils comes on to you, you may find it hard to say no. Especially when they're 18 or 19 and in summer love. But professionalism, the awareness of your peers, and the system in which you work all play a part. Now, whilst I'm no longer late teens, it has happened to me, and still happens (and, I'll bet on it, will continue to happen!) but we cannot expect that any new system of police checks is the only answer. We all share an ongoing responsibility; we need official checks to moderate the people who have relatively free access to children, and we need to look at the systems that we all operate within to check that those systems have ongoing peer checks and balances built in.
But most children are harmed by family members, or people they know, not strangers at all. Perhaps we should check on all them first, as that is where the greatest danger lies?
(c) 2003-2005 Russell Beale
Atom
RSS