Sarah's Law - some thoughts

Having recently been drawn into discussion regarding 'Sarah's Law' I thought i'd muse over my feelings (positive and negative) regarding it.

Generally I don't regard this as a positive way forward for a number of reasons. What it does do, for me, is to highlight the fact that those who should know, should know, and should make sure that they know and act correctly regarding that information and the management of people who have been placed on the sex offender's register.

Remembering the outcome when morons, confusing the words paediatrician and paedophile, daubed the home of a paediatrician in Newport with the word Paedo, driving her form home and job, a few years back I have concerns about putting information like this into the public domain. The potential of informing a few but fuelling many is too great and has the potential to become something for the vigilante types among us rather than bring about added levels of protection for our children.

Perhaps it's part of the dangerous play and the fear of strangers that has become part of our societal psyche that is being fed here. As a parent, I too have these fears and yet am aware that the danger is small, probably smaller than we have been encouraged to believe, and is more often than not closer to home rather than strangers!

It says something rather concern-making about our society when a person is encouraged to check on a new partner to make sure that they aren't a paedophile. In the old days people became sure of the person they were going to live with because there was a period of time getting to know them and their background and the like! Sadly though, this is no longer the case as the relationships and muli-fathered family units I happen across clearly demonstrate.

I have encountered situations where people using the 'paedophile' route to hit back at the person who has replaced them (as a totally destroyed home not far from here bears witness) in a relationship. The potential for adding to this is only increased by 'Sarah's Law'. Of course, even without it the whispers and accusations will continue but anything that helps fuel them is no help at all. Obviously the 'there's no smoke without fire' is at times a very dangerous adage.

The 'right' to check on the background of people who might come into regular contact with their kids wouldn't be so bad if the information was restricted but I have been told about person who was'being checked out' by a parent and if they told me I'm assuming they've told others too. This is an obvious means of starting rumours and putting innocent people into the frame.

I have been told that people asking will be instructed to keep the outcome of the enquiries to themselves - but I doubt that this will be enforceable or maintained and this does make it a vigilante or smear attack charter. Quoting the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), Sir Hugh Orde, who thinks that it would be, "Realistic to assume that people would keep information to themselves." What planet does the man live on, certainly not the one I'm inhabiting!

Some have tried to sell me this scheme on the grounds that it brings a 'positive' in that parents can check on people who might have unsupervised access to their kids. I was under the impression that no one who has not had a CRB check could have unsupervised access to children. If this is not the case, what purpose do the thirty plus CRB disclosures I've had done over the past few years say and what merit do they have (I have my views on this - but that's for another day!)?

As far as I am aware, no one has access to my children (supervised or unsupervised) without having a CRB check - so this must (should?) be a rather fallacious 'positive'.

Keeping our children safe is what should be happening by the way the register is managed and maintained and by the vigilance of parents and others in responsibility.

Having been involved with situations where sex offenders were 'lost' and where checks and reporting protocols were allowed to slip through administrative pressures such that people who were a danger were allowed to vanish back into society, sadly at times to act against children (and vulnerable adults too), I see a need for proper management and not this misplaced disclosure. Selling it on the grounds that it might save one child is understandable but not if by using it one innocent adult life is lost and this, through the action of self-appointed vigilantes has been, and probably will again, be the case.