H OW WORRIED should we be to discover that it is possible some of our teachers and teaching assistants in North Devon have not been CRB checked?

The question has been nagging me ever since reading the

Journal's

front page story of last week. At first sight parents might feel let down that a system designed to protect our children isn't working and that children might be in the care of someone with a criminal record or who's been accused of some wrong doing even if never proved.

The implication being that unwelcome attention and even tragedy is lurking just around the corner. And the next implication is that if everyone with whom our children come into contact has passed a CRB check we can breathe a sigh of relief and hand them over without another thought. That's plain daft.

The woman who admitted sexually assaulting children at Little Teds Nursery in Plymouth had passed her CRB checks. And there are other examples in the courts where these records of past behaviour have proved to be no guarantee against future crime. This is not the holy grail of child safety. Unfortunately there isn't such a thing. But there is the next best and that's the vigilance and common sense of parents.

Even if we had access to the criminal records of every person in Britain we'd never be able to prevent all crime. It's the kind of wishful thinking that infantilises all of us. The state, the police and every authority in the country cannot shield us from making good decisions. Surely the imperfection of the CRB system means parents must take on themselves the responsibility for choosing with whom their children play and by whom they're cared for.

It's certainly not an easy process, but it never has been, and no bureaucracy can replace the thoughtful attention needed to protect our loved ones. That's not to say the checks shouldn't be applied. But we should be wary of substituting such a fragile method for our best instincts and careful judgement.

We're all responsible for the young people in our society and need to sharpen those instincts and that judgement. Above all we shouldn't abandon our trust in the overwhelming majority of people around us who are caring, concerned and capable of doing what's best for our children.

◆◆◆◆◆

And in the same train of thought I find myself writing about football. For many years I've taken part in regular soccer sessions in Barnstaple that attract blokes of all ages and skills. Although they're slightly organised they're informal and can involve any number from four-a-side to teams of 15! I like to think the sessions can occasionally look quite classy because of the range of talent as well as experience. What marks our games out from the orthodox match is that we never have a referee. We have to regulate ourselves, awarding free kicks or penalties according to the laws of football as we read them. And, touch wood here, we seem to manage perfectly well without a ref.

I don't think I've ever seen, in nearly 20 years, a real argument over any decision. Yes there are sometimes howls of anguish, and even pain, and there might be an instant dispute, but it will be forgotten within seconds as everyone concentrates on trying to help someone who's gone down, then to make the best of the next passage of play.

Where there's a clash between two players of extreme difference in size and age it's clear that there's a respect and recognition of fair play. Very rarely has there been a toe-to-toe exchange of words, never mind blows, and a foul or a hand ball is almost always acknowledged. Players take responsibility for their actions.

That's how all games could be played, and if it was I reckon it would have a useful spin-off into other areas of life. When I hear public appeals to politicians to "sort things out" or make things better I'm reminded of the Premiership footballers who surround a referee harassing and demanding he makes a decision their way. They're paid millions to play a game they should love and the least they can do is appreciate their good fortune by accepting decisions that are usually obvious.

What they ought to do is ref their own matches. The football would be better, although I guess there wouldn't be quite so much money in it. I'm prompted partly by the recent controversial case of an unfair handball seeing France through to a place in the World Cup at the expense of Ireland.

If there hadn't been a ref to blame for missing the foul I reckon the player at fault would have put his hands up and there would have been a free kick instead of a much-disputed goal. I hear that it's getting harder to find people to ref and run the line because of the way some players behave. I'm not surprised and if it means they have to run their own games, so much the better.