I was up at about 6 this morning so I could go on the telly again. Not my usual routine, especially when there’s a Test Match on (when I usually have the alarm set for 10.46am, allowing just enough time to get breakfast before catching the last few minutes of the build-up to the start of play). But the monsters kindly let me out this time (with a chaperone, obviously) so I could be on the BBC.

My appearance on BBC Breakfast seemed to go OK. It was all very quick again, but I hope in those few seconds I didn’t offend anybody too much. My stance is still that I’m more than happy to be vetted in order to carry on visiting schools.

Interesting feedback from various people.

Some seem to be bristling about the cost. I expect most authors will probably split the cost (£64) and spread it across several schools. I think if I spread it over the events I’ve got coming up in the next 12 months it’ll work out at about £2 per school. (Obviously this method doesn’t help people like dinner ladies or low paid workers who can’t name their own fee, but I’m not claiming to comment for them. I’m just responding to the fuss that a few ‘esteemed’ authors have kicked up.)

A few times I’ve heard the ‘Where will it end?’ argument, otherwise known as ‘the thin end of the wedge’. This goes, roughly, something like this: we shouldn’t have to vet authors, because that implies we should have to vet everybody who works with children, or even lives near children, or has children, or can spell ‘children’.

Well, I like ‘wedge’ arguments. Usually a good response is simply to say that the first thing does not imply the second. Or, if it does, quite often the second thing is also a good thing to be doing, so the implication means we should do the first thing, then look into doing the second as well. It’s a mixture of both in this case:

Yes, it does imply that we should vet everybody who works with children. That’s a good thing. It’s the point of the scheme.

No, it does not imply that we should be paranoid about everybody who lives anywhere near a school (though now I think about it, what’s wrong with a bit of healthy caution?).

The strangest argument is the one I’ve heard from Messrs Morpurgo and Pullman – that vetting authors destroys the trust between author and young reader.

Is that so different from the trust between pupil and teacher, fan and popstar or, dare I say it, child and school caretaker? Well, I suppose it is different from the pupil/teacher relationship because a reader’s trust in the author isn’t borne out of getting to know the person, it’s a judgement of character based on the author’s work. Lovely that that trust exists. But surely it’s all the more reason to vet the author – let’s make sure the trust can’t be abused. (Barry put this very well in his comment on my previous post.)

And will vetting the author really threaten that trust? I struggle to see how. Vetting will be a process between the author and the Independent Safeguarding Authority. The teacher organising the visit might get involved to check that the author is ISA registered, but it doesn’t need to go beyond that, does it?

To be honest, most kids probably assume that everybody working with them has been checked out anyway. They’re not idiots. A lot of them might be surprised to find out that children’s authors have been allowed to go into schools for so long without being vetted.

The biggest shame is to hear that these few authors are going to be boycotting schools. Get over yourselves. Get registered and get on with inspiring kids to love reading and writing. It’s a fun job.