PDA

View Full Version : Harry Potter author a threat to children???? (not a kid friendly thread)



SCOURGE
07-18-2009, 06:50 AM
MG just spotted this and forwarded it to me.
This is screwed up.
http://carnalnation.com/content/12357/4/jk-rowling-must-register-potential-pedophile
J.K. Rowling Must Register as a Potential Pedophile

In a stunningly misguided program implemented by the British government, all children's book authors who visit schools must register with a national database intended to protect children from pedophiles, and they must pay a fee to do so. Beginning October 12, 2009, the Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) will require that all adults who work with children, including authors such as J.K. Rowling and Philip Pullman if they make special visits to schools, will be required to register with the database for a fee of £64 ($105).

The Independent reports that as a result, several well-known authors will boycott schools in protest of the requirement. Philip Pullman, Anne Fine, Anthony Horowitz, Michael Morpurgo, and Quentin Blake have all publicly stated that they object to having their names listed in the database. Pullman, author of the popular fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials, called the policy "corrosive and poisonous to every kind of healthy social interaction." He eloquently adds, "This reinforces the culture of suspicion, fear and mistrust that underlies a great deal of present-day society. It teaches children that they should regard every adult as a potential murderer or rapist." Anne Fine, the former Children's Laureate for the U.K. and author of over 50 children's books, labelled the requirement "government idiocy." "When it [the VBS] becomes essential, I shall continue to work only in foreign schools, where sanity prevails," she said. "The whole idea of vetting an adult who visits many schools, but each only for a day, and then always in the presence of other adults, is deeply offensive. Our children will become further impoverished by this tiresome and ill-considered scheme, and yet another gulf will be created between young people and the rest of society."

The VBS was set up in 2002 following the tragic murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells by a school janitor, Ian Huntley. A government spokesperson defended the new rigorous regulation, saying, "The new scheme means every individual working in a field that requires more than a tiny amount of contact with children and/or vulnerable adults will have to be vetted. If they are passed, they will be placed on a register that says they are allowed to work in a regulated field. If they are barred, they will go on a separate register and it will be a criminal offence for them to try and obtain work in a regulated field, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison. It will also be illegal for anyone to employ them."

Indeed, while such reasoning seems to make sense, the ramifications are far from sensible and grossly unfair to children and adults alike. This policy borders on hysteria and panders to the public's basest fears by assuming the worst of everybody. While none of these authors wants to see any child harmed, they point to the damage such a policy has on society as a whole. In an editorial in the Independent, Anthony Horowitz, author of the The Alex Rider Collection (Alex Rider Adventure) and the Power of Five book series, perhaps put it best: "This is a law made by people with a bleak and twisted view of society. And such people, quite simply, should not be making laws."

From the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/authors-boycott-schools-over-sexoffence-register-1748267.html):
Authors boycott schools over sex-offence register
By Chris Green
Thursday, 16 July 2009SHARE PRINTEMAILTEXT SIZE NORMALLARGEEXTRA LARGE
GETTY IMAGES
Respected British children's authors Anthony Horowitz, Philip Pullman and Michael Morpurgo object to a new government scheme that requires them to register their names on a database in case they pose a danger to children

ENLARGE
A group of respected British children's authors and illustrators will stop visiting schools from the start of the next academic year, in protest at a new government scheme that requires them to register on a database in case they pose a danger to children.

Philip Pullman, Anne Fine, Anthony Horowitz, Michael Morpurgo and Quentin Blake all told The Independent that they object to having their names on the database – which is intended to protect children from paedophiles – and would not be visiting any schools as a consequence.

Pullman, author of the fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials, described the Home Office policy as "corrosive and poisonous to every kind of healthy social interaction". He said: "I've been going into schools as an author for 20 years, and on no occasion have I ever been alone with a child. The idea that I have become more of a threat and I need to be vetted is both ludicrous and insulting. Children have never been in any danger from visiting authors or illustrators, and the idea that they should be is preposterous.

Related articles
Anthony Horowitz: This law reflects a twisted view of society
Leading article: Brought to book?
"This reinforces the culture of suspicion, fear and mistrust that underlies a great deal of present-day society. It teaches children that they should regard every adult as a potential murderer or rapist."

The Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) is being managed by the Independent Safeguarding Authority, set up after the 2002 murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells by Ian Huntley, a janitor at their school. All individuals who work with children from 12 October will be required to register with a national database for a fee of £64. The former Children's Laureate Anne Fine, the author of more than 50 books, said the scheme was "governmental idiocy" which would drive a wedge between children and adults.

"When it [the VBS] becomes essential, I shall continue to work only in foreign schools, where sanity prevails," she said. "The whole idea of vetting an adult who visits many schools, but each only for a day, and then always in the presence of other adults, is deeply offensive.

"Our children will become further impoverished by this tiresome and ill-considered scheme, and yet another gulf will be created between young people and the rest of society." Michael Morpurgo, another former Children's Laureate whose recent successes include the play War Horse, said the compulsory database of school visitors was "a nonsense" which would put writers off visiting pupils. "It's yet another example of the Government going way over the top," he said. "Writers don't go to schools for the money, they do it because they want to bring their stories to children and make readers of them.

"The notion that I should somehow have got myself tested or passed in order to do this is absurd. I know there has to be security in schools, and that's fine, but this is insulting and doesn't go any way to protecting children."

Anthony Horowitz, the author of the popular Alex Rider series of children's spy novels, said the £64 fee had "a nasty feeling of a stealth tax about it", and that, like Pullman and the others, the introduction of the database marked "the end of school visits" for him.

"Like so many of Labour's laws, it's just an ill-thought-out by-product of a general law to stop suspect people going into schools. And yet the Government doesn't seem to have either the courage or the sense to realise that they've got to make an exception here.

"A child who admires a writer has a great belief in that writer as a good human being. If you say that, actually, the guy who's writing this book could be a sick pervert and we've got to protect you from him, I think you're not exactly sending out the most positive message."

He added that the timing of the scheme was particularly baffling, as last year was the National Year of Reading, during which the Government heavily promoted the practice of authors visiting schools.

Quentin Blake, who rose to fame as Roald Dahl's illustrator and became the first ever Children's Laureate in 1999, said the Government was guilty of "grotesque misunderstanding" about what happens on school visits, and that he would refuse to pay the registration fee if he was asked.

"A lot of these people are asked to visit schools because they are known already," he said. "You don't ask Philip Pullman or Michael Morpurgo because you don't know who they are, and you don't go to the trouble of being the Children's Laureate to pay £64 to have permission to talk to children. That is bizarre."

A spokesman from the Home Office said: "The UK already has one of the most advanced systems in the world for carrying out checks on all those who work in positions of trust with children and vulnerable adults. From October this year the new Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) will ensure these regulations are even more rigorous.

"The new scheme means every individual working in a field that requires more than a tiny amount of contact with children and/or vulnerable adults will have to be vetted. If they are passed, they will be placed on a register that says they are allowed to work in a regulated field. If they are barred, they will go on a separate register and it will be a criminal offence for them to try and obtain work in a regulated field, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison. It will also be illegal for anyone to employ them."

ZombieSpeedball
07-18-2009, 06:59 AM
Man, that's really fucked up. I understand trying to protect kids, but that's really humiliating and uncomfortable for those authors to have to do that.

RickLM
07-18-2009, 07:05 AM
Man, that's stupid. The law was a reaction to the actions of a janitor, who is on the schoolgrounds all day, but it is forcing the registration of authors, who visit for a few minutes and are supervised the whole time. Duh.

artimoff
07-18-2009, 07:07 AM
Britain has really gone to the dogs in the last few years.

Donal DeLay
07-18-2009, 07:09 AM
So, it's forcing adults who visit schools to register AS pedophiles when they aren't? That's pretty fucking stupid.

Trey Krimsin
07-18-2009, 07:10 AM
This is almost like some classrooms. If one person breaks the rules, everyone gets punished. In this case, people outside the schools get punished. Fear does rule and control people's actions. It amazes me that this is occurring in England and hasn't already happened in the US.

The Mandarin
07-18-2009, 07:27 AM
Laws seem to get more and more child-centric every year. I can't help but wonder if this is a side-effect of the lowered death-rate and the lowered birth-rate that results.

Back when people had ten children only two of which lived to adulthood, no one had a problem with them living very dangerously. Halloween alone, in its original form, was an extremely dangerous holiday. Now look at the castrated version you get in modern times.

These days people only have 2.1 children. This has resulted in those children being treated with a preciousness that was completely alien to people of a century ago.

This has resulted in a society where everything revolves around how it affects the children.

c. page
07-18-2009, 08:28 AM
So, it's forcing adults who visit schools to register AS pedophiles when they aren't? That's pretty fucking stupid.

what it's saying is that they have register for a database to be checked out. if they show up as pedophiles, then they go to another database, which is the one for pedophiles. if they pass, they go to a database that says they can work with children.

it's a stunning amount of bureaucracy, but it's not making the authors register as pedophiles.

Foolish Mortal
07-18-2009, 08:34 AM
what it's saying is that they have register for a database to be checked out. if they show up as pedophiles, then they go to another database, which is the one for pedophiles. if they pass, they go to a database that says they can work with children.

it's a stunning amount of bureaucracy, but it's not making the authors register as pedophiles.
I think the biggest insult is not only do they have to register, they have to PAY for it themselves. :lol:

Brad N.
07-18-2009, 08:34 AM
I remember being a bit weirded out when I was 16 and visiting a school in England. We were teaching school kids American Football and all the kids in class changed out of their school clothes into their outdoor clothes right there in the middle of the classroom. In front of everyone else. Yeah, I have no idea what that has to do with this story but for some reason this article reminded me of that moment.

Treacle
07-18-2009, 08:38 AM
It's not saying they have to register as pedophiles.


"The new scheme means every individual working in a field that requires more than a tiny amount of contact with children and/or vulnerable adults will have to be vetted. If they are passed, they will be placed on a register that says they are allowed to work in a regulated field. If they are barred, they will go on a separate register and it will be a criminal offence for them to try and obtain work in a regulated field, carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison. It will also be illegal for anyone to employ them."

This is neither extreme nor unusual. In order to work with sensitive populations in America (including children and/or vulnerable adults such as battered women), you have to register with the state and submit to a background check (up to and including a federal one) in order to be vetted. If your background check comes back "clear," you're fine. If it doesn't, then it's illegal for you to work with those populations.

I'm actually in the process of doing this right now for the state of Washington, and it doesn't bother me. It's far more important to make sure children are safe, than to keep adults from being butthurt. If you have a clear background, you're fine. If you don't, then you shouldn't be around kids anyway.

Treacle
07-18-2009, 08:43 AM
This is almost like some classrooms. If one person breaks the rules, everyone gets punished. In this case, people outside the schools get punished. Fear does rule and control people's actions. It amazes me that this is occurring in England and hasn't already happened in the US.

It has happened in the U.S. You just won't know about it unless you work in a field where that kind of registration is required.


what it's saying is that they have register for a database to be checked out. if they show up as pedophiles, then they go to another database, which is the one for pedophiles. if they pass, they go to a database that says they can work with children.

it's a stunning amount of bureaucracy, but it's not making the authors register as pedophiles.

Like I said, we already do that in here. In fact, your state has some of the strictest regulations for social service workers I've ever heard of. :)

c. page
07-18-2009, 08:49 AM
Like I said, we already do that in here. In fact, your state has some of the strictest regulations for social service workers I've ever heard of. :)

have i mentioned that i am not pleased with the level of bureaucracy in the state in WA?

Treacle
07-18-2009, 08:50 AM
have i mentioned that i am not pleased with the level of bureaucracy in the state in WA?

Then don't go into the social service field or do any work with vulnerable populations.

Easy peasy.

Ray G.
07-18-2009, 08:52 AM
It seems to be one of those cases where caution gets ahead of common sense, but I think the authors are overstating things a bit.

c. page
07-18-2009, 08:53 AM
Then don't go into the social service field or do any work with vulnerable populations.

Easy peasy.

well, thankfully, i have no ambitions in that regard. however, there are still plenty of ways for that damn bureaucracy to rear its head for the non social service crowd, as well.

Treacle
07-18-2009, 08:54 AM
well, thankfully, i have no ambitions in that regard. however, there are still plenty of ways for that damn bureaucracy to rear its head for the non social service crowd, as well.

You've lived here longer than me, so I believe you.

I'm still thinking Washington is a better place to live than, say, Georgia though.

c. page
07-18-2009, 09:02 AM
You've lived here longer than me, so I believe you.

I'm still thinking Washington is a better place to live than, say, Georgia though.

never lived in georgia, so i couldn't say. the state's done alright by me for the most part, but i do have my issues with it.

Ryan Elliott
07-18-2009, 09:08 AM
Well, that's fucking dumb.

See you later thread!

The Governor
07-18-2009, 09:31 AM
It's a completely reasonable thing to ask people who work with children to have background checks.

My wife was a school assistant at a local school and she had to have the same checks (or their equivalent at the time) and she didn't come home bitching about being accused of being a peodophile, mostly because that wasn't what was happening.

The assertion that has been made by some authors that it "puts a wedge between children and authors" is palpable nonsense, the kids have no idea if the author filled a form in before visiting, and if they did know they wouldn't care.

To be honest, when people complain about this sort of stuff, I always think they have something to hide, why wouldn't someone want people who work with children to be properly checked?

If Ian Huntley had been checked, his previous history of sexual abuse might have come to light under this system, and maybe two 10 year old girls might not have died.

Dave S.
07-18-2009, 09:40 AM
Yeah, I don't get the problem here.

If you want to work with children, I want to know if you've got a history of child abuse. Simple as that. Whether it's for a day or a year. These authors are visiting school to school, who is to say they aren't taking a kid aside in the bathroom. The children have no idea this is going on, so that crap about teaching them to be afraid is bullshit.

And this isn't singling out authors. This is anybody who visits schools on a regular basis. Sure, the author is a public figure, but this includes the guy who is putting on an animal show, the lady who sings with puppets. The authors need to get over themselves. If they want to visit schools, they have to get checked out. The only one putting a wedge between the authors and the children is the authors who boycott.

Jonathan Callan
07-18-2009, 10:09 AM
This is neither extreme nor unusual. In order to work with sensitive populations in America (including children and/or vulnerable adults such as battered women), you have to register with the state and submit to a background check (up to and including a federal one) in order to be vetted.

To my knowledge, this is not true of visiting authors or guest speakers who do not make their primary income from the educational circuit.

bartleby
07-18-2009, 10:23 AM
It's a good thing SCOURGE mentioned that this was "not a kid friendly thread," what with all the children who routinely read the Bendis Board.

Alan Mac
07-18-2009, 10:25 AM
The issue that I've seen isn't just that it puts the impetus on all visitors to schools to prove themselves not a paedophile and make them pay for it. It's that it violates the basic point of innocent until proved guilty.

There's no problem with the school/state looking into people who primarily work with children, or one day visitors being chaperoned at all times. But to make anyone who wishes to speak on school grounds pay for this service puts an end to a lot of activities. No longer will you have parents/local business owners/people who graduated from that school coming to speak to children about their experiences or to give advice. It's just not feasible to expect these people to pay the charge and fill out the paperwork for something they do once a year or once total. And if they did, the system would collapse under it's own bulk and become useless anyway.

SCOURGE
07-18-2009, 11:52 AM
It's a good thing SCOURGE mentioned that this was "not a kid friendly thread," what with all the children who routinely read the Bendis Board.

There are people on this board who are under the age of 18 (or 21 depending on the state) and are therefore deemed "minor". Given the subject I thought the warning was a good idea.

SCOURGE
07-18-2009, 12:02 PM
Ive been reading some of your comments to MG. She made a good point that I thought I would share with you:
She had to get an FBI background check per the district/state regulations when she was working with her old school district. She had no problem with this. However as she pointed out, anyone that walked into the building that was not a member of the district didn't have to get background checks.
When they had guest speakers, they didn't get background checks. 99% of the time she said speakers had their entourage ---so the likely hood of them "sneaking off" and taking some kid with them was impossible.

The other point she made was also good-total "what if" - let's say that any of these authors submitted to this and there was a fluke the system that came back saying that Rowling was all evil. She was slated to speak with lets say, a 3rd grade class, of kids. Now the school has to figure out a way to explain to the kids why she can't make it, and as a children's author it would be damaging to her career if it was made public, regardless if it was a fluke in the system or not.

She thinks that the a lot of people here would be a bit more upset if say, this same ruling was here in the states and Mack or another creator had to submit to this.

RickLM
07-18-2009, 12:43 PM
Yeah, I don't get the problem here.

If you want to work with children, I want to know if you've got a history of child abuse. Simple as that. Whether it's for a day or a year. These authors are visiting school to school, who is to say they aren't taking a kid aside in the bathroom. The children have no idea this is going on, so that crap about teaching them to be afraid is bullshit.

And this isn't singling out authors. This is anybody who visits schools on a regular basis. Sure, the author is a public figure, but this includes the guy who is putting on an animal show, the lady who sings with puppets. The authors need to get over themselves. If they want to visit schools, they have to get checked out. The only one putting a wedge between the authors and the children is the authors who boycott.



But they aren't "working with children," they are simply visitors to the school. A book author, an airline pilot, a famous athlete, a congressman -- these are the kinds of people who visit schools and give talks. Do you put all of them through this kind of red tape?

If you go far enough, you can create a situation where no one enters the school except the school employees. Basically you kill any enrichment activities or special events.

Dave S.
07-18-2009, 12:45 PM
If you go far enough, you can create a situation where no one enters the school except those who aren't registered sex offenders.

Fixed.

I don't think their should be a fee. But at the same time, I think we should be keeping track of who is entering schools.

Dreaded Anomaly
07-18-2009, 12:46 PM
This seems to be a case of policy driven by "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. I'm not, on principle, particularly fond of such things.


There are people on this board who are under the age of 18 (or 21 depending on the state) and are therefore deemed "minor". Given the subject I thought the warning was a good idea.

In which state, exactly, is it illegal for someone under 21 (or any age, for that matter) to read an article about measures to prevent pedophilia? :mistrust:

Dave S.
07-18-2009, 12:47 PM
This seems to be a case of policy driven by "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. I'm not, on principle, particularly fond of such things.



In which state, exactly, is it illegal for someone under 21 (or any age, for that matter) to read an article about measures to prevent pedophilia? :mistrust:

California. Damn liberals.

JamesV
07-18-2009, 12:58 PM
I guess I just don't get it. I mean it's not like this law says CHILDREN'S AUTHORS MUST REGISTER! it says that if they fall under a certain set of guidelines they have to.

When I was in college I judged a lot of high school forensic competitions. I had to consent several times for a sex offender history and I never saw the big deal. I understand why.

I also object to the mindset presented in the second paragraph that just because you know who famous person X is doesn't mean they will do something wrong. I think there's a large number of examples that prove that just cause the public knows you, doesn't mean everyone knows you.

Thudpucker
07-18-2009, 01:03 PM
I think the biggest insult is not only do they have to register, they have to PAY for it themselves. :lol:

That's the only part I think insulting. Registering and investigating people who spend a certian amount of time in schools makes sense. Charging individuals 100.00 each is a bad idea though, seems like the school budgets should bear the burden of the program.

Major Bludd
07-18-2009, 01:19 PM
Refusing to be vetted just makes me more suspicious of those authors.

Really what is the problem with being placed on a "safe" list?

Should having written books that children enjoy make you above a background check?

It is an admitted fact that child molesters seek access to children...so, anyone seeking access to children should ABSOLUTELY be vetted. How could anyone be opposed to that?

c. page
07-18-2009, 01:22 PM
That's the only part I think insulting. Registering and investigating people who spend a certian amount of time in schools makes sense. Charging individuals 100.00 each is a bad idea though, seems like the school budgets should bear the burden of the program.

on the other hand, given the number of teachers that i know that have to buy their own supplies, i can also see how the schools may not be able to afford this. (assuming schools in the UK are as poor as their American counterparts)

Whip
07-18-2009, 02:12 PM
well, thankfully, i have no ambitions in that regard. however, there are still plenty of ways for that damn bureaucracy to rear its head for the non social service crowd, as well.

:wave:

:twisted:

c. page
07-18-2009, 02:28 PM
:wave:

:twisted:

yeah, i was pointing my way in the general direction of north tacoma after i typed that.


i was also shaking my fist.

Donal DeLay
07-19-2009, 07:33 AM
what it's saying is that they have register for a database to be checked out. if they show up as pedophiles, then they go to another database, which is the one for pedophiles. if they pass, they go to a database that says they can work with children.

it's a stunning amount of bureaucracy, but it's not making the authors register as pedophiles. Ah - gotcha. Thanks.

SCOURGE
07-19-2009, 10:04 AM
Refusing to be vetted just makes me more suspicious of those authors.

Really what is the problem with being placed on a "safe" list?

Should having written books that children enjoy make you above a background check?

It is an admitted fact that child molesters seek access to children...so, anyone seeking access to children should ABSOLUTELY be vetted. How could anyone be opposed to that?

There is to much room for error....what if someone who should have been put on the "naughty" list ends up on the "nice" list and the mistake isn't discovered until after it is to late?

Treacle
07-19-2009, 12:50 PM
There is to much room for error....what if someone who should have been put on the "naughty" list ends up on the "nice" list and the mistake isn't discovered until after it is to late?

What are you basing this "too much room for error" claim on?

I only speak to my experience going through this process in America, but the vetting process is primarily looking for criminal offenses (assault, robbery, rape, etc.), and you either have a criminal record or you don't.

Furthermore, even if mistakes are, on occasion, made (after all, no system is perfect), that's a poor argument for getting rid of the process all together. Are you seriously arguing that it's better we don't look at the backgrounds of people who work with children (in any capacity) because every once in awhile, a background check may come back incorrect?

The Governor
07-19-2009, 12:52 PM
Are you seriously arguing that it's better we don't look at the backgrounds of people who work with children (in any capacity) because every once in awhile, a background check may come back incorrect?

I also thought that argument was counter-intuitive as well...

Ben
07-19-2009, 01:25 PM
It's a good thing SCOURGE mentioned that this was "not a kid friendly thread," what with all the children who routinely read the Bendis Board.If children read this thread, we'd all have to register as pedophiles.

SCOURGE
07-20-2009, 12:16 PM
What are you basing this "too much room for error" claim on?

I only speak to my experience going through this process in America, but the vetting process is primarily looking for criminal offenses (assault, robbery, rape, etc.), and you either have a criminal record or you don't.

Furthermore, even if mistakes are, on occasion, made (after all, no system is perfect), that's a poor argument for getting rid of the process all together. Are you seriously arguing that it's better we don't look at the backgrounds of people who work with children (in any capacity) because every once in awhile, a background check may come back incorrect?

I didn't say in any capacity....just in this particular case.