Report comment

Karen Leech, thank you for replying on behalf of the ISA. I am sure the ISA has people's best interests at heart, but I am also sure that many of us who have taken the time to read through the 'Vetting & Barring Scheme' guidelines are also concerned about their legal woolliness, the tendency of all institutions to engage in 'mission creep' and 'empire building', and the fact that in such a fraught and sensitive area as the protection of 'vulnerable children/adults' that the 'precautionary principle' is highly likely to have an effect---'Can we afford to take the risk?'.

All of us who are in line to be 'vetted/barred' are also potentially falling into the category of 'vulnerable people'---vulnerable to the agendas, weaknesses, and faults of a distant and practically irresponsible [in the technical sense], body who will have the say so over jobs, careers, livelihoods, and even lives (especially when they get it wrong, as they will). And it's how an organisation copes with it's mistakes and failures that is the mark of whether it really does a 'good' job or not; quite apart from whether or not the money, effort, and risk involved in this scheme is going to be worth the effect it will have, given that the vast majority of abuse of the vulnerable takes place in the home, and is inflicted by family members and others known to the person being abused.