Mayne Lines

[steepholm]

I caught a discussion on the plan to scale back Criminal Record Bureau checks on the Today programme this morning (it's about 90 minutes in), and rather took against the man who was defending the current system, Mark Williams-Thomas. My problem was with the curious leap in logic he made when he said, first, that paedophiles are devious and calculating people (actually he said "deviant and calculated", but that's what he meant) who will seek out opportunities to abuse children - and, as if to illustrate his point, cited the example of children's authors, and particularly of William Mayne, convicted in 2004 for sex attacks on young girls - which, Williams-Thomas implied, took place in the context of visits to schools. In fact, Mayne's abuse took place in his own home rather than on school visits, where CRB checks might have been an issue. For the sake of argument, though, let's say that he indeed met at least some of his victims on school visits, and groomed them there. The tenor of Williams-Thomas's argument would then seem to be that Mayne, deviously calculating where to find opportunities to abuse young people, decided that the best way would be to become a well-known children's writer. This seems an unlikely strategy and a fairly tenuous motive for him to take up his pen. Besides which, if CRB checks had been in place at the time they would have done nothing to prevent the abuse, Mayne being - as far as the record showed - a man of excellent character.

Mayne's offences took place between 1960 and 1975. These days, visiting authors and other visitors (CRB-checked or not) are not allowed to spend time alone with children without a member of school staff being present. This seems to me a very sensible rule, one that doesn't cost millions to administer, and that would have been far more effective in stopping someone like Mayne than the reassuring "false negative" that might have been generated by the CRB. CRB checks, or something like them, may be useful as an added precaution when hiring teachers, caretakers and others who are likely to spend time alone with children as part of their job (so long as people can be persuaded to remember that a fallible guide to past behaviour is not the same thing as an infallible guide to future behaviour) - but for occasional, chaperoned visitors? Not so much. For once - though it pains me to say it - I agree with a government proposal.

Comments

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

But, but! Won't someone think of teh childrenz?

[joyeuce]

If they really manage "portability of criminal records checks between jobs to cut down on needless bureaucracy", I'm all for it. The current system of having to be checked separately for each paid or voluntary role you have is idiotic.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

That was the one thing everybody did seem to agree on!

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

As I say below, my impression from the research I carried out two years ago (which wasn't much, but seems to have been more than a lot of journalists engaged in) was that this was precisely the main intention of the VBS, which got lost in distorted fears that it would massively extend the number of people covered.

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

I looked into this a couple of years ago. My conclusion was then, and it remains now, that the intention behind the VBS scheme was never to massively extend the numbers of people covered, but to improve the management of the system as it existed, through greater sharing of information, and, for instance, the replacement of the requirement to pay for a check every time one wanted to do an activity that put one into contact with children with a single one-off payment.

Unfortunately, press coverage got carried away, I suspect on the back of various schools and other bodies that decided to err massively on the side of caution. This led to Philip Pullman and other authors getting extremely huffy about legislation that was never intended to apply to them and their activities in schools in the first place, and acting as if a background check was the same thing as an accusation of paedophilia, which I would argue strongly isn't the case.

And so now we have the repeal of what were, to all intents and purposes, imaginary laws in the first place. And, of course, the Mail and its ilk will scream their heads off for the return of such checks the moment we have another Huntley-type scandal.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I was not one of those huffy authors, but Williams-Thomas certainly seemed to be suggesting that some paedophiles take up children's writing as a way of getting into schools. Then again I see he has written scaremongering articles for the Mail as well...

You may well be right that this is a repeal of imaginary laws. The Government, the BBC, Williams-Thomas and the woman from Barnardos who was also on, all seem to accept that it involved a substantial "scaling back" of the number of people covered by the system, but they may have their own reasons for putting it that way. On the other hand, if schools are erring on the side of caution and requiring CRB checks unnecessarily, it may be an imaginary law that needs repealing.

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

I'm quite prepared to believe that Williams-Thomas is a gibbering paranoid loon, in favour of proactive policing, which seems to involve arresting people before they've actually committed a crime.

jemck can attest that, even before the VBS, some schools thought that the law required a CRB check for anyone visiting. So yes, a degree of clarification was probably necessary. But so is rationalising the system, to introduce portability of criminal records. I suspect that we'll end up with something virtually identical to the VBS in all but name.

[joyeuce]

Williams-Thomas certainly seemed to be suggesting that some paedophiles take up children's writing as a way of getting into schools

The mind boggles. Wouldn't it be easier just to be become a dinner-lady (if they still have them) or a caretaker?

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Or even a child protection expert...

[sheenaghpugh]

It bleedin' well is a repeal of imaginary laws! My OH helped draft some of the real laws Nick Clegg was telling lies about on TV this morn (the ones that had all-party support at the time), and he was screaming at the screen. It was NEVER the case that parents needed checks to take a neighbour's child to school, nor writers to make a one-off visit (I can vouch for that myself). Some folk, reading the Daily Vile, thought so, but Clegg knows better. He was telling downright lies, the little toad.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I missed that performance - but I don't think I'll bother with iPlayer, in Clegg's case. If his lips are moving he's telling a lie, is a pretty good rule of thumb with him.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

I couldn't understand why the college where I occasionally teach an evening class to adults (adults note!) insisted on carrying out a CRB check on me. It does appear that educational establishments are going way beyond what is legally necessary.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

That's bizarre! The strange thing is, I've never been in such close proximity to children when doing author visits as on the numerous occasions that I've helped out on school trips at my children's schools. Very often I'd be given a small platoon of 8-year-olds to take round the museum, sewage works, church or whatever, with no teacher in sight.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

My recollection is that Mayne used initial contact, whether fan-letter or school visit (and I can't swear to the school visits, because I think the woman who wrote about her experience* had sent a fan letter), to encourage the girls to enter a private correspondence, which would eventually lead up to an invitation to his home.

* She did receive an invitation, but for some reason nothing came of it; when the truth about Mayne came to light, she asked her parents about it, and they couldn't remember why she didn't go. They wouldn't have stopped her, because they were flattered that a famous author was corresponding with their daughter, and didn't suspect an ulterior motive. I don't know whether modern parents would be more suspicious.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, my memory of the case too was that initial contact came from fan letters, but I don't know enough about it to say that he didn't meet any of them through school visits.

[shewhomust.livejournal.com]

I heard that, too, and took agin Mr William-Thomas even faster than you did, at the point where he was introduced as a "child protection expert." Not being as on the ball as you were, I didn't get his name, but now we have that, all is made clear - and this is what his expertise consists of.

Well up to Today's usual journalistic standards.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the links! I do think it's unwise for someone who works in this area to describe himself as "a hands-on former detective", but words don't appear to be his forte.