Galloway was sexually abused as a child

[faceless]

Galloway claims he suffered abuse
(UKPA) – 10 minutes ago

George Galloway said he was the victim of child abuse, as he gave his backing to a new Government vetting system for those working with youngsters. The Respect MP said he suffered abuse at the hands of a janitor when he was 11. Galloway made the revelations in his regular column in the Daily Record newspaper.

He said every person whose work brings them into regular contact with children should be proven fit to do so. The member for Bethnal Green and Bow said: "Every time a Soham murderer or a Dunblane Thomas Hamilton emerges, I die a little inside as I remember that dirty old man driven by the same perverted interest in sexually attacking kids. I told no-one, not even my wives, of what happened to me. All I feel is ashamed, though I was the child victim and he the aggressive predator."

A scheme to vet everyone who wants to work or volunteer with children will begin in October. The Independent Safeguarding Authority will carry out the checks in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on behalf of the Home Office. The checks are being introduced after the murders of schoolgirls Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells by school caretaker Ian Huntley in 2002.

Several children's authors have spoken out against the new system. Writer Michael Morpurgo said he will no longer make school visits when it is brought in, describing it as a "step too far". But Galloway said it will be worth it if it spares just one child the "horrors" of sexual abuse. "Trust me", he said, "I know".

-----------------------

that's quite a revelation - I wonder why he's chosen to speak out about it now? I'm guessing these comments are from his column which will be in tomorrow's Record.

[faceless]

[vudu2u2]

ever the reactionary.
..it is ludicrous to believe that if someone is vetted (for cash, of course), that they become pure and untarnished with no character flaws, and are thusly entirely to be trusted with children.
..so, with 12 million already on the CRB checks list, and goodness knows how many more feeling obliged to join this latest list (for cash, of course), at what point do we reach a safer society?..when we re all on the list?
..this is another cynical, abusive action from a government of vicious authoritarians, to appear to be doing the right thing , but who are in fact simply setting up another revenue opportunity for the government.

..I live with 2 children, who I helped create..do I need vetting?..after all where does this kind of behaviour stop?
..there is no way to fulfill thoughts desire for ever more permanent and perfect security, just endless opportunities to create a society which threatens us all with extinction.
..remember it is the police and the school who failed to spot huntley as a potential criminal, because they were careless..which no list or law or set of rules is ever going to change, or prevent happening again..its not the law, the rules that are the problem, its just people being people, schools need themselves to be concerned about the nature and character of those they employ...
..this is another idiots charter for a society that lives in a straight jacket, paranoid, utterly indifferent to its own contradictions, chewing on a wet rag.

[faceless]

How is he being reactionary? Reactionary means right-wing and it's usually the right-wing who fight against this kind of 'government interference'.

I can't see any logical reason why these authors wouldn't agree to the checks. They profit from the visits and the children, so it should be seen as just a part of the business expenses.

'It's political correctness gone mad', don't you know?

[Skylace]

So how are the laws changing exactly? I worked with kids in the UK and I had to go through screening processes, finger printing etc. Just like I have to here. So I am unsure how this is changing.
Are they saying even school visitors have to be screened, not just volunteers and workers? Because if that is the case that is a bit excessive. Not to mention the fact that means that all parents and guardians who come to the schools should then have to be screened under that idea. They come into contact with the children for extended periods of time. Of course, I am not sure what the law is stating, so I am only guessing right now.
I'm all for screenings to work with children. We have to do our best to protect them. So I am wondering what changes are taking place.

[faceless]

As far as I know, they're bringing in certain categories of people, with those who pay regular visits (once a month or more often) to be checked.

I'm sure there are some of the authors who might have convictions from their youth, but I'm pretty sure each case can be taken on its merits. The ones who are refused the certification will certainly get a cloud over them though.

[Skylace]

Hmmm...I'd have to see the new regs in print to say what I honestly feel. However, I think this will do more harm than good. The more people you have to process that more murky the procedure will become as there will be so many that have to be processed. It will slow down the process and also cause them to want to rush through others that shouldn't be. The more paperwork and red tape you involve, the more chance there is for error. It's like the gun laws in the states. They say there's a waiting period but it can be rushed through. These regs were put in place to protect people and haven't been effective.
Personally, after working a decade with children (part of the time in the UK) I can say that those who are in direct contact for long periods of time should be checked but whenever we had visitors or guests, students were not left alone with them. Even an author that visits schools is nothing like a janitor, teacher, lunch room worker, etc. The idea of leaving students alone with guests is laughable. Not saying it would never happen, but I think the instances would be rare and the adult who allowed it to happen should be dismissed.
I see this simply as a way to give civil servants more work to do by creating red tape and in all honesty has little to do with protecting children. Like most security at airports it will give the face of doing something while actually doing little.
Once again, I haven't seen it all in front of me so I could be wrong, but this is just the feeling I get.

[faceless]

I can't see there being any large amount of red-tape. How many people are there who go into different schools on regular occasions? It's only going to be a few thousand at the most and they'd only need to be checked once.

I'm guessing the whole thing might have more to do with preventing extremist religious people from getting the opportunity to poison minds.

[Skylace]

Not necessarily and you'd be surprised who is at schools regularly. From parents, speakers, and others. Even delivery people. And I can tell you they won't just be checked once.
While it may not be this way I can say over here in the State of PA I have to have not one but three checks done every year. You saying that it will only be checked once doesn't make it so.
This will be loads of red tape. There is a lot involved in the background checks. I know, not only have I done them in the states but I did them in the UK as well. I also have family over there who has had the checks done and they have to get updates as well. It's not just a one off. It's not something that is just done over night and does take time, form, and money to be completed.

[faceless]

The system is already in place to do the checks though, and if it costs a few quid each year to be able to get free promotion of your business product in schools then that seems fair to me.

If they don't like it they don't have to do it - with the ones who refuse to allow the check putting their (apparent) principles before the perceived value that the children get from them being there, they can't really claim a moral argument.

[Skylace]

I still don't think this law is being done to protect children. It's being done to make it look like they are doing "more than before" to protect children. That's just my opinion.

[vudu2u2]

..there is simply no reason to believe that this new pay as you interact system of taxing people who love to work with children, will protect anyone from anything..

..this is the governments continuing interference in all of societys easy to reach parts, and the answers are always the same, more measuring, more costs to pay..

..you dont think it strange that it takes 7 years to respond to the soham murders, with some social tinkering?

..they are locking up state schools, they are becoming less and less about anything other than the collection of data and revenue, sats , sex ed for the under 12s, phonics, now charges for school visits..
..this is a government populated with the most cynical, careless and fascistic politics i have ever known, they fix nothing, break everything...

..they need to be gone, like yesterday, theyve done too much damage..

..and, please consider..the only difference that these changes will make to the school that my kids go to, is one day some volunteers, visiting helpers, who are already known to, and considered a part of the school life,..paid nothing on monday, but tuesday they must pay or be arrested, or give up their activities...

..welcome to straight jacket Britain, please have your passes ready, and remember you are being monitored (by rapists,paedophiles,fraudsters,murderers..y know the "Watchmen")

..if you want a prison society, paranoid, fed on propaganda, feverishly seeking that perfect security feeling, then crack on....

[faceless]

You sound more of a paranoid reactionary with that diatribe than anyone I've heard of for a while. Prison society my arse. Educate yourself and your family - problem solved. Or maybe that's too much like hard work?

[vudu2u2]

..yes,quite..if you want a prison society then you will continue to welcome the ever growing presence of the state as a surrogate parent..this seems entirely reasonable to some, it is entirely insane from my own point of view, so yes i deeply disagree with a lot of encroaching state interference with ever more pointless ideas that are merely a cloak for control and disenfranchisement..of people like you and me...perhaps you are not a parent, or dont have small children, i can confirm to you that schools are getting worse, tagging and recording the whereabouts of children gets seriously discussed by some parents i know of, this concerns me greatly along with a lot of other issues which directly affect the children.
..and no, i dont believe a word this government says, and trust them not one jot..perhaps you do

[faceless]

I chose not to be a parent. I realised when I was a teenager that you'd have to either do everything by the book or step away from it entirely.

My sisters have kids though, one of whom went to the same school I did. Both of them are pretty much exactly the same as I was at their ages - same type of friends, same amount of freedom etc. I don't see them suffering any lack of liberty or anything else. In fact, they're better off with much better conditions in refurbished classes.

I reckon you're over-reacting against something you have no power against - and that's just a waste of time and energy. That line from Rudyard Kipling's 'If' about having the wisdom to know the difference between what you can change and what you can't is apt.

I don't see this government as any different from any other - they are all cunts. Of course, education is handled by the Scottish government here, so we don't have the same problems.