You are correct that Huntley was a caretaker
at another school. In one sense, Huntley had been "on the system"
but information sharing broke down. (A key point in the Bichard Enquiry).
However, the point about CRB checking partners is covered by the culture
of vigilance.
If people were aware then as they are today
about grooming, concern might have been raised about young girls are visiting
an older woman's house. Questions could have been raised either by parents,
neighbours, or employers who might be aware of and suspicious of the situation
if only on the margins. Grooming by people in a position of trust
does not occur overnight or in isolation. To be sure, the pattern
of behaviour is often apparent in hindsight, yet if people are sensitive
to the issue, then there is a chance to prevent it.
At a basic level, parents often tell their
youngsters not to play with the older kids because they might get hurt.
The same can be said at any age. If someone does not want to
get caught in a Mafia hit, then they should not hang out with Mafia.
I think the following quotation from
Bichard sums up the situation.
“Huntley alone was responsible for, and
stands convicted of, these most awful murders. For those agencies whose
job it is to protect children and vulnerable people, the harsh reality
is that if a sufficiently devious person is determined to seek out opportunities
to work their evil, no one can guarantee they will be stopped. Our
task is to make it as difficult as possible for them to succeed”.
In the end, our first and last defence is
vigilance on behalf of those who are not fully aware of the danger.
Best,
Lawrence
Lawrence W. Serewicz
Policy and Partnership Manager
Corporate Development Unit
Wear Valley District Council
01388-761-985
Ext. 311
In message
<[log in to unmask]
.uk>, at 16:38:59 on Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Lawrence Serewicz
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>After all, Huntley was a caretaker and not directly responsible for
any
>children.
It is also the case that the children he killed were not students at his
school, but at a different one. This seems to be commonly overlooked.
The girls went to his house because it was where Maxine Carr lived. Her
boyfriend could have just as easily been unemployed.
The only logical conclusion (to prevent a re-occurrence) is to CRB check
everyone's partners as well.
--
Roland Perry
