Timothy Garton Ash writes in The Guardian about the Independent Safeguarding Authority and its database of those barred from working with children and “vulnerable adults”:

The ISA reassures us on its website that anyone who may be barred will be told in advance and, “we will share with them all the information on which we rely”. But I spotted a sentence in the original inquiry recommendation which said, “the police, as now, would be able to identify intelligence which on no account should be disclosed to the applicant”. When I asked the ISA press spokesman about this, he conceded that chief police officers “would have discretion”. So actually the website lied: people wouldn’t necessarily be given all the information? Er, yes. And you wouldn’t know what you wouldn’t know? Er … could I send him an email.

In response to my email asking what information would be withheld under what circumstances, he emailed back “this question is for the police to answer”. When I asked “who in which part of the police?” he suggested I contact the Association of Chief Police Officers. So much for this authority being “independent”.

And what if, on police intelligence grounds that I’m not allowed to know, I’m mistakenly barred by the ISA – that is, tarred as a paedophile? To whom do I appeal? Well, it turns out I can appeal only on a point of law or a finding of fact to the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal, located in Chichester Rents, Chancery Lane. Now if I had lots of spare time and lots of money to pay good lawyers I could probably, after some years, win my case, with the aid of the Human Rights Act and the European court of human rights. But what a message to send to those who wish to volunteer to help our children.

Jenni Russel also made some similar points in her piece in this week’s Sunday Times:

Being checked by the ISA is not a one-off process. Once you are registered, it will track you for life. It isn’t concerned only with your criminal record, but also with any behaviour that might be considered suspicious, either now or in the past. Your employers will be legally required to report any concerns about you, or any worrying incidents, such as a child accusing a teacher or a helper of assault, even if you are subsequently cleared.

If the ISA decides you are worthy of inquiry, its 200 caseworkers will have the power to decide whether you should be barred from working with children, or vulnerable adults, or both. Its criteria for possible bans are alarmingly broad. It isn’t restricting itself to identifying paedophiles. Its concern is to identify anyone who may ever put a child or vulnerable adult at risk of harm.

Once you are brought to the ISA’s attention as a cause for suspicion, its caseworkers have unprecedented authority to look into your lifestyle, including any history of drinking or drugs. Its list of possible warning signs runs to two pages and danger signals include: whether you believe you deserve to have sex (which must include at least half the population); whether you are emotionally lonely (that’s everyone I know at some time or another); and whether you are ever gratified by fantasies of hurting someone else (I am guilty on almost a daily basis, especially when aggressive drivers cut me up).

Any allegations ever made against you will act as a red flag, because staff are warned not to assume that an acquittal by a court or a professional body implies innocence. They are told to reach their own conclusions, based on a balance of probabilities. Should they be minded to bar you, you will have an eight-week window in which to argue your case, but if you should fail, it will be 10 years before you can attempt to have the bar lifted again. You may appeal, but only on the basis that the ISA has made an error of law or fact.

This entry was posted by andrew on Thursday, December 17th, 2009 at 10:40 and is filed under Anti, Database state, UK News Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.