I just received this email from a trustee of a charity - who wishes to remain anonymous - about the corrosive effect 'safeguarding' rules are having on the work of his organisation. Unnecessary proceedures poison the work of the organisation and can absorb scarce resources...

"The vetting and barring regime continues to have detrimental effects on the operation of charities. As a trustee I, and others, am faced with re-assuring our staff, officers, and volunteers that the actions they are taking are reasonable in the light of ever increasing fears of the consequences if something goes wrong, especially when volunteers are visiting “vulnerable” people. Rather than vetting creating re-assurance it is creating anxiety through an attempt to have rules covering all eventualities.

I just received this from a university tutor, a case that 'shows up the absurdity of the CRB system'.

'Student out on placement, all going ok, manager finds out CRB check due to expire soon. If not resolved student’s placement will terminate then despite all being happy with her performance to date. So on one day she is fine to be out alone with ‘vulnerable’ people, the next day she is deemed so risky that she cannot even enter the workplace! What nonsense.'

Well said. It is strange how the day somebody's CRB check expires, all hell breaks loose and everybody panics that they are suddenly the most terrible threat.

They are the same person, but the paperwork has expired so they become de facto dangerous.

A supply teacher was suspended for 'gross misconduct' after gave a 17-year-old pupil a lift home.

The boy had forgotten his bus fare. The teacher was going the same route and offered him a lift for a favour.

This comes in the wake of a woman reported to police for helping a boy down from a tree.

These are simple acts of human kindness. That they are punished as unprofessional or risky shows how everyday and normal caring has become contaminated.

We've had a few emails about the Guides CRB checking 16 and 17 year-olds - a nasty and suspicious habit, which is going to be outlawed by the upcoming Freedom Bill.

A Scout leader just sent us this discussion thread, which discusses the Guides checking their 16 and 17-year-old 'young leaders'.

There is a long-winded discussion about different categories of 16 and 17 year old Guiders (who, let's face it, must be the lowest-risk group in existence) and the merits or demerits of checking them.

I just received this email about a school in Devon undergoing building works:

‘Our two boys attend a grammar school in Devon (every possible Ofsted accolade) where they were told in assembly that with the construction of a new block they were not to speak to any builder, and that no builder must speak to them or he will face dismissal. How can we possibly hope to build any kind of better (or 'big') society with such an frightening lack of trust, not to mention courtesy? The school's instructions sound like something out of a 1950s sci-fi nightmare.’

The business of bringing outside contractors into schools has become fraught with difficulty. One man, who installs wind turbines on school roofs (in the holidays), tells me that all his staff have to be CRB checked.

Annabel Hayter, former chairman of the Gloucester Cathedral flower guild, was forced to resign last year after standing up to the Cathedral’s demands that she and other members of the flower guild undergo a criminal records bureau check.

At the time, dozens of people (including Philip Pullman, Anne Fine and Anthony Horowitz) wrote letters in her support to Cathedral officials, calling for her to be reinstated.

Unfortunately, this has not happened. Annabel has received no apology or reinstatement, and in fact has been blocked from other voluntary positions.

Yet she is unrepentant, and is continuing to take up the case of her wrongful dismissal with the Home Office. Her case has inspired many others to come forward as vetting rebels, and has also inspired new official procedures to enable people take up over-cautious CRBs. In recognition of this she was awarded the Oldie Magazine campaigner of the year award.

This email from a gentleman in Cambridge describes how photos in places related to children - even if there are no children actually present - have also become latently suspicious:

A Manifesto Club member took this photo of his child's sportsday at a Derby school, in what he described as 'an obvious act of defiance'.

What is interesting is the idea that parents putting themselves under suspicion - and holding back from taking photos - is a sign of their 'support for our school'. Indeed, checking and monitoring oneself has come to be seen as the prime civic act, the way one shows oneself to be a responsible person.

And yet, behind the sign are the characteristically cute and disorderly signs of a children's sports day - children who, more than anyone, would have wanted images of the day's activities.

I just received an email from a man who has been stringently checked for his role in police custody suites - but who is unable to get access to a school governors' committee meeting.

'I am an independent police custody visitor (voluntary and unpaid) and was appointed last year but only after I underwent a stringent police check, which I understand is more rigorous than an enhanced CRB check. I have an identity card issued by the police and signed by the chief constable giving me the right to access police custody suites in my area unannounced at any time of day or night, to go where most members of the public never get to see.

Here is an image snapped by the Manifesto Club's Dolan Cummings, in Rochester Cathedral.

Photo bans are becoming more common in Cathedrals - and not just for reasons of religious irreverence, but now for 'child protection' reasons.

This prevention of photography of the choir - which, let's face it, is likely to be pretty blurry in the darkened cathedral - shows the extent to which any photography of children is seen as latently paedophilic.