Crimes against children, especially sexual crimes, are rightly a cause for great concern in society. In fact, the issue of child protection has been covered at least three times by the Scottish Parliament in less than a decade. In 2003 the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act allowed for the creation of a list of persons deemed unsuitable for working with children. This list process was replaced and improved with the implementation of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007. Further issues to do with sexual contact with children formed parts of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009. Clearly, concern regarding sexual offences against children has been high in our legislators minds.
This legislation sets out the jobs that people should be barred from if they have been found guilty of a sexual offence against children (actually they go further than that but for the purposes of this post thats all I need to cover). For reasons unknown, all the groups interested in child protection (voluntary sector, social work bodies etc) neglected to ask the Scottish Government to include “famous” people, people in a “privileged” position, people in a “high profile” position, people who some (but not all) would call “role models”. Not a single person or group submitted evidence that these people should not be allowed to work with children if convicted of a sexual offence against them.
And quite rightly. After all, the legislation and the lists are not about being famous, being privileged or a role model. The lists are about protecting children. The lists seek to stop those who would harm children from working with children. I think that, as a society, we can agree that this is a good thing.
But recent events have shown that stopping offenders working with children is not enough for some. For some, if a person can be defined as famous to some, described by some as a role model and arbitrarily defined as working in a privileged job then there should be a further punishment. A punishment that goes beyond what anyone as asked for, provided evidence that is necessary for or even highlighted as important before. A punishment that is beyond what is asked for by law. What this punishment actually is I supposed what will depend on what some sections of society demand at any given point. The variables about fame, privilege and role model status mean that it will be impossible to predict what this extra-judicial punishment is but we can use a current situation as guidance.
Up until late last week I could not have told you who Craig Thomson was. I had never heard of him. It was only a brief story on the BBC News website about him pleading guilty to offences of a sexual nature towards children that told me he played for Hearts football club. I did have a passing thought wondering what Hearts would do but I concluded that if he received jail time then his career is over but if not then Hearts may keep him on as he can be well managed as a registered sex offender. As it turns out, Hearts have chosen the second option. A boy do to the Mrs Lovejoys out there have a problem with that.
Leading the charge has been Children 1st (previously Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children (RSSPCC)) who have appeared in a number of media outlets demanding that Hearts “look again” at their decision. Interestingly they have not actually come out and said that Hearts should sack Thomson. Asked several times today on BBC Radio Scotland Call Kaye programme, Children 1st Chief Executive Anne Houston was asked several times what Hearts should do about Thomson himself and she declined to give an answer.
I think I know why. Legally everything that needs to be done has been done. Hearts know that Thomson is a registered sex offender so will now ensure that they meet all of their child protection duties. There is not a single legal basis for Hearts to sack Thomson. The job title of Footballer is not a proscribed one when it comes to the legislation and various lists that are used to protect children. Thomson had previous contact with children in schools which will now stop and his contact with youth teams will end and contact with others like ball boys & girls can also be ended. Interestingly Children 1st have cited “indirect contact” with children as another source of concern but I cant actually find what that means. Pretty much every job has the chance of indirect contact with children so should all sex offenders be barred from employment?
Child protection procedures have been shown to work as designed in this case. Thomson was caught, he plead guilty and has been punished. He will be subject to monitoring, evaluation and risk assessment as he is on the sex offenders register. He will have no contact with children. The system has worked.
But a child protection system that works as designed is clearly not enough for some. More punishment is being sought. Yet it is being sought in a very obtuse manner. Rather than have the courage of their convictions and openly demand the sacking of Thomson the statement released today by Children 1st accuses Hearts of “Not taking action to protect children from the risk of sexual harm” and states “Allowing convicted sex offenders to continue working where they will have … contact with children goes against the purpose of the Sex Offenders Register”. Neither of these statements can be shown to be true. I cant work out why Children 1st have all but said that Hearts are allowing Thomson to abuse children in the future.
Children 1st, and others, have decided that due to interpretations of fame, privilege and role model status that there should be extra judicial punishment dished out to Craig Thomson and that makes me very uncomfortable. As a Liberal I am a firm believer in clear and transparent laws and that a free-from-influence judiciary are the mechanism through which those laws are, ultimately, applied. If the laws of the land are not enough then it is up to people to seek new clear and transparent legislation from our parliament as opposed to arbitrary applications of nebulous concepts like fame.