Protection of children should be of paramount importance, but keep a bit of perspective. How feasible is it to certify all those who should and shouldn't visit schools? Sensible precautions, such as never being alone with kids, etc., surely should suffice? The madness of this paranoia ignores statistics which show that children are at their most vulnerable within their own families!

Why do these authors need to visit schools anyway? Have they never heard of video-conferencing?

Everybody else who works in schools, however fleetingly, has to be CRB checked. It strikes me that there own sense of self-importance is really the issue.

If we want a system where everybody who works with children is checked then we can't make exceptions. Giving the decision whether to CRB check someone to school staff means that someone sooner or later will make a mistake. The current system protects teachers and other school staff from having to make this decision. Particularly in the case of 'famous' people, there is likely to be pressure not to put them through the paperwork.

If we want to keep our children safe these writers should do there part, just like everybody else, and have a CRB check done. It's only filling in a form and sending it off (they could probably get there agent / PA to do it anyway).

As I understand it, an MP recently claimed that it was not necessary for him to be vetted (in order to go into school & speak with the children) because he was never left alone with any of the children. If that is true, then the same reasoning should be applied to anyone who visits schools, for whatever purpose.

A typical author, thinks he should be treated differently from anyone else who works with children on a regular basis.

This is about authors who regularly go into classreoms and work with children (a really good and worthwhile thing). Like EVERY other person who works with children then need a basic disclosure from the CRB (or Disclosure Scotland). This is quick and not expensive (£4 for a volunteer!).

There is a potential issue for charities etc who have to pay out every year for multiple volunteers and see it as money that was meant to support the charity and there is an argument for the process to be directly funded by central government.

BUT they 'I an too good to need this' argument is pathetic.

Several people here have mentioned Ian Huntley. Huntley had in fact been investigated several times on suspicion of rape, child molestation, etc. but never convicted. When he moved, his background details were not passed to the relevant police authority because of concerns that this might breach the Data Protection Act, a nice example of how seemingly benign legislation can have malign results and a warning, I suggest, to those who uncritically support this new invasion of privacy.

Havng got that of my chest, however, I note that I too have gone through a CRB check because my work in cycle clubs involves contact with children and juveniles. It didn't cost me a penny because it was done through British Cycling and filling in the form took about ten minutes, but it does lead me to wonder why this new legislation and much higher cost is necessary.

This totally unsustainable drive towards 'protecting' children has had completely the opposite effect.

We have a generation of overweight, indolent, pampered halfwits with little or no self reliance because they haven't had the chance to develop any, having been driven everywhere they go, if they go anywhere at all.

On the other hand we have thousands of youngsters to whom the word feral would not be completely out of place. They roam the streets at night and are effectively 'raised' by the gang leader, someone unlikely to be your first choice of baby sitter.

All of this is thanks to the 'terror' campaign which is theoretically designed to SAFEGUARD children but which in fact has done them a terrible disservice by depriving them of their childhood including the most important thing in their lives, the male influence.

Yes, men have been emasculated and demonised by feminist zealots over 30 years and God help anyone who dares to stand up to these Amazonians of the Protectors of Children.

Interestingly they are less interested in the physical trials of children as witnessed by the many cases of child cruelty in the home which often results in death. Nor do they campaign in India where street children are routinely kidnapped and deformed by gangs who send them onto the streets to beg (yes, Slumdog Millionaire was true in that respect).

But if that magic three lettered word beginning with S and ending with X is involved the zealots, male and female are in their like a shot.

So while we are happy NOT to vet the street gang leaders who control the activities and attitudes of thousands of boys and girls in the UK on a DAILY basis we DO want vet WRITERS who school kids may be LUCKY enough to meet once a year.

Have we gone too far with the campaign to protect our kids? Er.....no, clearly we must insert an electronic tag at birth which will keep them safe at all times....then we could insert similar tags into adults which ring bells and flash red lights when non specified adults come too close to children in unregulated situations e.g the street.

Though hopefully the Thought Police will have intervened long before an actual incident of breaking the law of 'P roximity' comes to pass.

Actually the more I think about it the more I like the idea of Thought Police, Proximity Laws and Electronic Chips.

Pullman, you are wrong sir. Kindly report to your nearest police station for re-education, chipping and in your case sir, industrial strength vetting on an annual basis.

If writers/authors/poets etc are to be vetted before going into schools to meet the readers of their books: books one assumes aimed at that age of readership, then where do you draw the line?
I can understand 'unknowns' being vetted and researched before going into schools, and it's a really sad comment on today's society that it has to be even contemplated, but for someone like Phllip Pullman, or J K Rowling even to have to go through something like that, is bordering on the ludicrous.
Writers are often to be found in public places; such as bookshops or libraries, places where children often go on their own, where they hold signings and/or readings. Do such writers have to undergo the same scrutiny in these places where they will also come into contact with children, with, or without their parents/guardians?
To search for things like drugs and flick knives seems reasonable; after all we don't want authors on the receiving end of trouble in schools, do we?
Seriously, they should apply the same criteria to established childrens authors visting schools(and why would a writer of adult fiction want to go into a school anyway), that they apply to them in other public places ie bookshops and libraries. And if the teachers are so afraid of them being in school, then stay with them, for pete's sake.

Its not just authors. Its plumbers, electricians, anyone who goes to a school. Its bus drivers, its ice cream sellers,garden fete organisers, anyone who interacts with children. In fact, eventually, its everyone. Everyone who lives will interact at times with children. The question will be 'who does NOT need a CRB' It could eventually apply to all parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles. Am I exagerating? you may say yes but believe me, who would have predicted the situation we have now becoming real. And, of course, it will happen that people will be referred by others, who think there is a risk, to the authorities. It will be expected that this should happen.
It has happened before. In East Germany it was called 'Stasi'.
No1 you say, he must be crazy. Lets hope that that this lesser evil is the outcome. I will happily go along with it if the above does not come to pass.