The future world will be about authorisation. Whether it is granted and by whom or what will determine where you can go and who you can see.

Of course we must take reasonable steps to protect our children, but this state-imposed vetting is being taken to extremes beyond reason. Not only will it hinder those constructive relationships you mention between children and adults outside their immediate family, but it will have an equally subversive effect on any sense of community. Suspicion of others is growing to East German "Stasi"-inspired proportions. I prefer to think that this is an unintended consequence, rather than a deliberate policy, but I have to wonder... It seems to be yet another example of our being encouraged to look to the state for sanction and protection, rather than relying on common sense, our own judgment, and community bonds. Even more worryingly, it is yet another case of the citizen apparently being viewed as guilty until proved innocent.

Please keep writing your clear-sighted and cogent columns. We need them.

Destroy the middle class. It's the only way.

Perhaps the Telegraph will be as public spirited as provide the Independent Safeguarding Authority with the relevant evidence that shows which MPs were allegedly somewhat less than straight when submitting their expenses claims?

They could point out that this demonstrates that these people might not be suitable participants in any activity that involves contact with vulnerable adults.

They certainly should not be trusted to deal with the general affairs of vulnerable adults, or children for that matter, and this soft evidence should be available to future prospective employers for their reference.

"Suspicion," Thomas Paine wrote, "is the companion of all mean souls and the bane of good society."

Why not just make it illegal to be male?

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

I have argued that the government's attitude infantilises the public and reduces personal responsibility at the same time as enhancing the power of the state.

Henry, I agree with pretty much everything you say but it's the media's own unchecked infantile treatment of the extremely rare cases of paedophilia that have fuelled this government's responses which now results in the these sorts of over-protective measures. The extreme column inches they generate will always mean a weak government is likely to be over-rigorous in the hope that they appease newspapers and lose them less votes.

One of this country's most depressing aspects is that the more we let 'those that think they know better' run our lives & advise us on what we should do, then the more that group of people will think they can govern every single aspect of our lives, when really they are only trying to justify their own existence. This goes for the likes of social workers, health and safety mafia, oh yeah, and the media most of all.

Absolutely, my ex volunteered to provide after school art classes for a local school and had to pay for the priviledge of having her muck raked through, and it took weeks.

"Won't somebody think of the children?" the paedogeddon lot cry, but this is harming children, the more difficult it's made to interact whith them the less people are prepared to sacrifice their time or privacy.

And so volunteer organisations dealing with kids are struggling more than ever.

Would relaxing the current level of scrutiny mean more children were abused?

Probably, but would it benefit more than it hurt?

The scales at the moment are so heavily weighed in the favour of 'avoid any possible harm' that it's stagnating and even reversing the kind of out of school activities and learning open to children even 10 years ago.

Chris Morris was right.

Because of this vetting (and the fact that you have to pay to be vetted yourself), a good friend of mine who has been coaching children's sport in Southampton for many years has decided not to apply for renewal, which means that from April next year his sports club will close. This means that instead of constructive activities, the kids will be left to wander the streets without supervision after school ends and before their parents return from work. It also means less physical activity, at a time of rising obesity.
This aweful, authoritarian government needs to be voted out ASAP.

Henry I have a practical suggestion here.

Perhaps as part of 'Liberty Central' you could immediately launch a new scheme to protect the public from dishonest politicians.

The procedure would be simple enough to devise. All prospective candidates for the next General Election can be invited to complete an application and their standards of public honesty can be assessed. Candidates who have good records when it comes to meaning and doing what they say and sincerely attempting to carry out election pledges can be awarded Gold Stars and then local voters can choose amongst them with confidence as men and women of honour.

On the other hand candidates who don't have the courage to apply, or who have already been demonstrably mendacious should have the evidence against them on-line and be awarded a 'black mark' so that voters know that they are not to be trusted.

This might be an effective way of protecting the public against cheats and liars and it would be a great deal more effective that the CRB Checks referred to here.

So, if I understand things correctly, sixteen-year-olds must be protected from the threats presented by un-vetted novelists reading to them from the stage in their school hall, but eighteen year-olds can go to Afghanistan on active service?

That school in East Bedfordshire you mention is only two miles from where I live and this doesn't surprise me at all. I feel sorry for any child growing up in this environment.

I have just finished reading Norman Mailer's 'The Castle in the Forest' in which he suggests that Adolph Hitler was the product of an incestuous relationship, which in turn was responsible for the rumours of his monorchidism.

Given that most child abuse of all kinds, still takes place within the victims' own families, isn't the decision to target the likes of authors, sports club administrators, dinner ladies and gentlemen, police road safety officers, part-time mathematics tutors, school-run drivers, and so on, rather missing the point?

Would not the logic of the government's plan be, first of all, to build a similar database of all parents, once pregnancy had been confirmed?

So, if I understand things correctly, sixteen-year-olds must be protected from the threats presented by un-vetted novelists reading to them from the stage in their school hall, but eighteen year-olds can go to Afghanistan on active service?

And as to the precautions taken to protect Iraqi and Afghan children from our forces, our allies and our friends..don't even think about it. There is something revolting about the hypocrisy to be discovered in every act of this appalling government .

It is perfectly exemplified by the article, on cif, by Tony Blair's wife, blaming the President of Sudan for not turning himself into the Hague to answer charges that he is a war criminal.

Truly this is the Age of Brass.

Hearsay, rumour and unfounded suspicion are now known in the trade as "soft information" and this will be the currency of the new procedures

Sounds like the new modern management-speak description of the traditional practice of ... er ... gossip.

And as Bertrand Russel put it:

No one gossips about other people's secret virtues.

gryff :)

there are several ways of looking at this issue, none of them pretty, bar one. that is that it is done in order to protect children, and we should be willing to do whatever it takes. this one breaks down, very quickly. it only makes sense to a mental state of panic and hysteria.

between 11m - 14m people working with children or vulnerable people will have their privacy invaded, and be effectively treated as fitting a criminal profile by virtue of their occupation or voluntary activity. they will pay approx £80m for this priviledge - a tax which the non-profiled don't have to pay. and it will achieve very little which could be termed 'positive' and much damage, including to children themselves. one or two people will strike gold - its an ill wind etc...

furthermore, it will be illegal to hire, and to work or volunteer in the prescribed fields of work. the citizen's right to work will be predicated on registering on the database.

how can this disproportionate legislation be compatible with the human rights act?

this seems to have got under a lot of radar. does anyone have the gen on the history of the legislation?

My only quibble with the article is the suggestion that this insanity only goes back a decade, though it's certainly doubled and redoubled in that time.

It seems to me this obsession with monitoring, controlling and reporting all contact between adults and children is both self-defeating and self-reinforcing.

Many adults, entirely reasonably, are reluctant to go through all the hoops, climb the hurdles and endure the humiliations now required before having contact with children. Only the most highly motivated adults see it as worthwhile. That group includes, of course, those whose interest in children is not welcome. It is ironic - tragic even - because in general children would be safer if they could have unvetted contact with many adults; this would usually provide, without any deliberate organisation, sufficient oversight to prevent undesirable activity by the minority of sick adults.

Good article, Henry. What "Nanny State" does not seem to understand, or does not want to understand, is her management of the nursery works against the best interest of those in her charge. Still, it does bring in revenue via stealth taxes and Blue Chip IT companies can make a few pennies as well by developing the necessary surveillance databases.

It is all so damaging. Three weeks ago I was sat in a park in Barcelona and noticed a young lad, probably aged 5 or 6 wandering around by himself and a little distressed. He came up to me and said that he had lost his mum. We had a little chat and then toddled off hand in hand to a nearby playground where his mum happened to be searching for him. Mother and lad were reunited and everyone was happy. Strange to say, I had no compunction about taking on that responsibility in Spain. Had ithe same thing happened in the UK, the thought would have crossed my mind that I was running a risk of being accused of being a child abductor and that it would be safer to look the other way leaving him to wander around until found by his mother or the police or... I hope I would have done the same, but what troubles me is an inability to put hand on heart and say that I would.

@shebunkin

This may help (or scare you):

SafeGuarding

I find the appeals process rather frightening:

"An appeal under subsection (1) may be made only with the permission of the
Tribunal."

gryff

Was just browsing an old mid 'Fifties Famous Criminal Trials series Penguin paperbook I have and in the back are brief descriptions of other then current Penguin's .... this one caught my eye ..

The Missing Link by Katharine Farrer

"The child of a couple of enlightened young Oxford intellectuals disappears from its pram, and the consequences are both gay and exciting".

You could even buy it without being vetted!!!

jerrym

It is all so damaging. Three weeks ago I was sat in a park in Barcelona and noticed a young lad, probably aged 5 or 6 wandering around by himself and a little distressed. He came up to me and said that he had lost his mum. We had a little chat and then toddled off hand in hand to a nearby playground where his mum happened to be searching for him. Mother and lad were reunited and everyone was happy. Strange to say, I had no compunction about taking on that responsibility in Spain. Had ithe same thing happened in the UK, the thought would have crossed my mind that I was running a risk of being accused of being a child abductor and that it would be safer to look the other way leaving him to wander around until found by his mother or the police or... I hope I would have done the same, but what troubles me is an inability to put hand on heart and say that I would.

Some years ago I found myself in a similar situation, but I was in a busy British supermarket. I asked the child if anything was the matter and she said she had lost her mother. Naively, I thought I might resolve the matter as described above. Instead, suddenly a security guard grabbed the child while another guard made it clear, without any attempt to hear anything I might have to say, he thought I was a disgusting menace. At least it ended there. While this hysteria lasts, I would not again do anything by myself to help any child in any circumstances.

Good point, shebunkin. Not only does the indiscriminate imposition of vetting seem to be in conflict with the Human Rights Act but it - surely - runs counter to the principal in English law that we are all innocent till proven guilty, of which the non-imposition of the carrying of compulsory identity cards has been a defining feature to date. But for how much longer?

I am a vetted school volunteer myself and - whilst a bit offended at the procedure - I allowed the school to run a check because I thought the years of assistance I could offer was worth the irritation. I'm sorry that the protesting authors refused to be vetted. They could have gone along with it for the sake of the children, whilst at the same time spearheading an articulately reasoned campaign to have vetting reduced in scope.

Outradgie,

What an awful experience. It is not too difficult to imagine what could have followed. A call to the police, a statement from the guard who thought you were a "disgusting menace", your arrest and details of the arrest being entered on the records. Something that would have been a permanent black mark against your name for the rest of your life.

shebunkin

there are several ways of looking at this issue, none of them pretty, bar one. that is that it is done in order to protect children, and we should be willing to do whatever it takes.

cecile

Good point, shebunkin... I'm sorry that the protesting authors refused to be vetted. They could have gone along with it for the sake of the children,

But that's how the government always gets away with it. Regardless of how objectively stupid, oppressive or dangerous any particular policy might be, it is only necessary to make a claim that is done for unassailable motives (protecting children, national security etc) and it becomes effectively beyond criticism. Those who reject the policy are always accused of being against the (claimed) motive, not the policy. Hence anyone who kicks back against the intrusive mandatory vetting process is accused of not protecting children - and cecile and shebunkin have just made that accusation.

They could have gone along with it for the sake of the children, whilst at the same time spearheading an articulately reasoned campaign to have vetting reduced in scope.

There is an assumption there, Cecile, that we have a government that listens to articulate reasoning. Do we?

What did you mean by reduced in scope? What is the real (as opposed to imagined) problem that required this the legislation and, weighing up the pros and cons, why given the possibility of false and missed positives, are we and the children better off with such vetting?

Male mid-twenties.
During a long period of unemployment I enjoyed doing gardening and often let local children and young people get involved. They enjoyed this, as I did. However, I was always cautious never to allow any child to ever cross the threshold of my front door, which I always kept fully open so as to avoid risks of a closed door.

I remember one youngperson saying to me that an alledged local paedophile's windows had been smashed, this made me reflect on why this observation had been passed onto me.

I also got some curious comments from local youth about whether I was gay, in a negative sense and often got hostile comments on such, sometimes from complete strangers whilst just walking down the street.

I once chased a male teenager who has incensed me by homophobic comments, but then I stopped and realised how the local 'community' might view a man chasing a boy, maybe they would have thoughts that I was a paedophile, gay to boot and also deserved to have my windows smashed.

This was 20 years ago and the issues still resonate in my life today and the increased culture of suspicion of any everyday involvement between children and adults, including relatives is not mared by avoidance. The poison seeps into all forms of interactions.

Now I am a children and young peoples social worker and I maintain strict boundaries, not in itself a bad thing, but children often need transparent reassurance and positive unspoken regard. But trying to do this whilst fearing that the very basis of trying to be a caring professional and individual being constantly under suspicion is corrosive.

My life is impoverished and no doubt children's as a consequence of a society that is slowly but surely suggesting men have no place in the lives of children, even as a father, uncle, friend etc.

These sorts of measures are just an extension of Britain's view that 'Children should be seen but not heard'

"Hearsay, rumour and unfounded suspicion are now known in the trade as "soft information" and this will be the currency of the new procedures brought in by the Independent Safeguarding Authority in the autumn.."

And how!

'Have you informed on your neighbour today, comrade?'

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

I did wonder, as I started to write this comment, how easy it might be to adopt the opposite approach and write something highly critical of Henry Porter's position. Here's what I came up with:

Sorry, but why should adults be allowed to indulge themselves in the delight of contact with a child who is not their own? This sounds highly sinister to me and is a very dubious claim from the so-called liberal elite out there.

See how easy it is to denigrate someone's position with words! Frightening, really. I am beginning to think that the government must really wish to vet everything we say or write. Mandatory domestic CCTV in every household with children cannot be too far away now. I expect the Home Office already has plans in place in case New Labour happens to win the next general election.

By the way, I expect the authors' protests will fizzle out by the autumn as paranoia and hysteria mount throughout the summer, whipped up by the do-gooder brigade.

I am mystified by this article, mainly, I wonder what it is doing in this paper.

The whole trend of Nu Labour social policy is that the state is better qualified to look after children than the parents of those children.

You are clearly a traitor and possibly unbalenced. You need re-education.

ah yes genoa - I understand.

Only the guilty have anything to fear.

The logical response here is that every single person involved in working with children should refuse to co-operate with this foul agency, and on a specific date, cease their work.

Across the country every swimming group, scout troop and youth club could shut its door simultaneously, and this could be reported as a triumph of New Labour.

Remember that the same MP's who gave permission for the personal lives of the public to be trawled through and held up for scrutiny, are the same ones who took legal action to stop us finding out what they were spending their expenses on.

Some pigs are clearly more equal than others.

Bitethehand: "Would not the logic of the government's plan be, first of all, to build a similar database of all parents, once pregnancy had been confirmed?"

Or even better (writing as devil's advocate), make it an imprisonable offence for anyone to become pregnant or to cause pregnancy without first obtaining a Certificate of Human Worthiness (CHW) from the Human Worthiness Authority. Since there aren't enough prisons, simply construct concentration camps. After all, we British knew how, long before the Germans cottoned on. It's in our nature as a highly vindictive and punitive nation. It's in our genes to be dastardly. Think of the new plan as a British version of the Lebensborn, which would slot nicely into the fascism-lite that Britain is now rushing helter-skelter towards under New Labour, with much enthusiam from many other quarters.

Our society will collapse if men continue to be collectively demonised as abusers.

In fact, this whole system is exactly what happens when you have a government that enshrines in policy the idea that all men are potential abusers.

They do so because they are in hoc to two very inter-linked, well financed and organised voting blocks:

1. The child abuse industry (and it is an industry and a profitable one) which takes the idea that all men are potential abusers (rather than the reality of a minority of men - and women)> This industry seems to lose no opportunity to emotionally blackmail people into either parting with their cash or having their own opinions 'formed' by these groups.

2. The Feminist industry (and indeed, they are a well financed industry, supported mainly through tax payers money) which has a whole plethora of groups from rape groups to business groups, and all of which are united by a common mantra that a) they are "victims" of abuse or discrimination and b) the family structure is one that "oppresses" them.

One need only look at teaching and social care professions to see the almost wholesale absence of men there - I mean, what right minded man would want to go into a profession where the whole culture is aimed at his removal?

We need to restore our society. Firstly, we need to first get rid of both of the above industries - or at very least, clip their wings very severely. Secondly, we need to vote for politicians that put the idea of family first and are committed to ending the discrimination against men - and if that means for voting for political parties other than the big three, then do it.

So, cecile (19 Jul 09, 6:13am (about 2 hours ago), despite your belief that "Not only does the indiscriminate imposition of vetting seem to be in conflict with the Human Rights Act but it - surely - runs counter to the principal in English law that we are all innocent till proven guilty...." you allowed yourself to be vetted and thus gave credence to the Nanny State! Bit "double-standards", if you ask me.

This new requirement by New Labour is more than an "irritation". It is a malevolent accusation that anyone who refuses to be checked may be a paedophile. I can well understand why authors and others find such an implication highly repugnant and have agreed to use whatever means they have at their disposal -- namely, withdraw their support -- to highlight the stupidity of the new law.

Why so much vitriol thrown at 'Government' or 'Authority'? This is a seriously and possibly, a terminally diseased culture we are inhabiting. I envy those who are strong enough not to feel hopeless.

aurelian

Destroy the middle class. It's the only way.

Other than to guess that your lifestyle is utterly middle class, what is your point?

Surely the solution here should be a free vetting process as it happens in many places in the world and that's about it (not only for child protection but for a number of other reasons).)

Genoa, you have simply misunderstood the principal objection. If only money was the issue. But no, it is the wholesale dissemination of mistrust, suspicion, and fear of the 'other' to a new generation. And it is the unwarranted exclusion of millions of people from certain job markets for shame, tittle tattle and the futile illusion of security. These things will not protect children, they will damage them now and as adults in the future.

If then someone gets offended I would suggest a trip to the psychiatrist, I am not expert but such reactions identify to me some latent issues (given that I can confirm that one in ten has such issue, so no a tiny minority, sir

Actually I am something of an expert here. I can tell you that those who get offended probably have a healthy dose of self respect based upon a realistic appraisal of the self....but worryingly, bringing children up to believe that adults are not to be trusted and danger is ever present is associated with later pathologies such as poor attachment in relationships, extreme authoritarian personality type and xenophobia. What is more, the disease of suspicion erodes healthy human encounters causing misery and isolation to society at large. So please don't talk to me of 'psychiatrists' and 'latent issues' when you support such unhealthy policies..

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Bowman
19 Jul 09, 8:20am (4 minutes ago)

aurelian

Destroy the middle class. It's the only way.

Other than to guess that your lifestyle is utterly middle class, what is your point?

Given that most of the senior members of the ISA will have been appointed after an advert was placed in the 'Jobs' section of the Guardian, surely the most logical option is to ban the Guardian Jobs section.

CiF really knows how to flog a topic to death, doesn't it?

There have already been the Bea Campbell (has anyone noticed her ironic resemblance to children's author Jacqueline Wilson?) and Lindsay Mackie articles, on which I and most other CiFers have already made clear our views on this issue. Repeatedly.

Suffice to state that I believe this counter-productive, disproportionate and paranoid legislation should be scrapped NOW.

I agree with all comments made. One small observation though,

RadioTed

Henry, I agree with pretty much everything you say but it's the media's own unchecked infantile treatment of the extremely rare cases of paedophilia that have fuelled this government's responses which now results in the these sorts of over-protective measures. The extreme column inches they generate will always mean a weak government is likely to be over-rigorous in the hope that they appease newspapers and lose them less votes.

That would more accurately read "the extremely rare cases of paedophilia committed by strangers, namely people who are not family members of the child concerned or friends of the child's family".

I spent the last 35 years of my career as a parish minister in a Scottish city. The only effect that I could see of the hysteria surrounding child abuse was that it completely wrecked our youth programmes. In the past, a man who had been a Scoutmaster for many years was considered a pillar of the community. Now the common belief appears to be that he MUST be a paedophile who has not yet been caught. At the end of my time I could still have easily stocked Scouts, BB, Guides, etc with young people but the whole "official" atmosphere was SO unpleasant and threatening, that no adult would touch it. Whatever threat social workers appear to think is posed by Scoutmasters, a teenager is surely safer in the church hall with forty other boys than sniffing glue in his bedroom, drinking Buckfast at the street corner, or, most dangerous of all, entering a chat room on his computer.

>>but worryingly, bringing children up to believe that adults are not to be trusted and danger is ever present is associated with later pathologies such as poor attachment in relationships, extreme authoritarian personality type and xenophobia. What is more, the disease of suspicion erodes healthy human encounters >>

Oh dear, so in your distorted view of reality a vetting process which could prevent a convicted child abuser to get a job in a nursery, process of which children are obviously not aware of, is going to affect their trust of adults.

I am afraid the one who is missing the point is you, this is a vetting process carried out behind the scenes, no one is going to line up the children and say this guy/woman will work with you but only after we have ascertained that she/he is not a child abuser.

THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT THE VETTING PROCESS, NOT THE CULTURE OF DISTRUST. Resubmit.

thirdrail - "Why not just make it illegal to be male?" It isn't just male. A female janitor at a school I once worked at put her hand on an eight year old boy's arm while telling him off, and the boy threatened to expose her as some kind of paedophile. It's got to such a pitch now that, if a child came up to me in the street and wanted me to hold his or her hand while crossing the street, I'd be inclined to tell that child to find his or her own way across.

At last. The lunatics have taken over the Asylum.

I should have probably qualified that the article begins attempting to deal with what it describes as toxic culture and ends up putting at the centre of it a vetting process which to me should be as natural and as systematic as loving a child.

A school in Bedfordshire recently banned parents from attending sports day to guard against paedophiles. The man in charge of the event, Paul Blunt, from the East Bedfordshire Schools Sports Partnership, was quoted as saying: "If we let parents into the school they would have been free to roam the grounds. All unsupervised adults must be kept away from children. An unsavoury character could have come in and we just can't put the children in the event or the students at the host school at risk like that."

And of course this idiot doesn't understand that a school sports day is part of the bonding process between child and parent, the child WANTS to show their parents theit school and what they are doing and even if they lose (and believe me I know what that is all about) it is actually still a positive experience for both. Thank you to the Befordshire school for turning what should have been a developmentally important as well as enjoyable day out for parent and child into a pointless, sterile activity.

Bravo - well done.

>>Last week, a woman who left her four children, the eldest of whom was nine, in a park while she went to a shop found her name had been listed with the Criminal Records Bureau. She had done nothing wrong>>

The eldest was nine and the youngest? Four at best? To me this woman should not have been allowed to have children in the first place let alone look after others'. How long was teh shopping trip? Where is the line? IS it OK five minutes to buy a pint of milk or two hours to find a new pair of shoes? You either give us teh full picture or leave anectodal evidence like that where it belongs, the dustbin.

I'm a 50 year old gay man who has just had first hand experience of this sort of sad and frightening drift towards state paranoia regarding the safety of children. A close friend's mother had been hospitalised in Scotland after having been knocked down by a car and when her condition suddenly decllined, she called me to ask if I could look after her 10 year old son for a couple of days so that she could fly back. I have known and loved him since the day he was born, so there was never a moment of hesitation on my part. The following evening, I was visited by police following a report that I was 'harbouring' a juvenile. Only after contacting his mother to verify the circumstances (which took over an hour due to her having her mobile switched off in the ward) were they satisfied enough to leave. I must say that they were considerate and polite throughout; I am pretty certain that, having seen the boy happily watching a DVD, they could see that there was nothing untoward. One of the PCs looked distinctly shamefaced to be part of the whole excercise. But now I wonder what report has been filed on me, who in the neighbourhood reported this and, even sadder, if I can ever feel safe in spending time with him alone again. His mother was furious about the whole incident, but it has only left me feeling numb, saddened and horrified that our society has come to this.

Very good piece henry. This relentless increase in govts control over the community is truly frightening. The govt is supposed to be ‘0f the
People - thats the essence of democracy; its purpose is not to increase its power over us but to do our will. A true social democrat govts purpose is to strive towards creating a more equal society in every way; control anti democratic forces and curb the excesses of pure capitalism in order to work towards a more just society. This govt is doing the exact opposite. But what to do, who believes the Tories will have a different agenda and the result of voting against Labour is a Tory govt? What I object to is the hypocrisy and lies perpetrated by this govt. the pretence that they need draconian and intrusive powers which is done by creating or exaggerating a fear of something or other – from large to small issues. They went to war in Iraq in false pretences (fear of WMD) ; the sanctioned torture and control orders (fear of Al Qaeda) ; theyve created hundreds of new crimes and by increasing sentencing (stoking up fear of crime),; the very fact that databases, like contactpoint are accessible only to officials (thousands of them) and in contact points case not to parents, shows what that is about - and now this new vetting scheme. What I dont understand is why we are not out in the streets protesting more about all this?