Guilty till presumed innocent

Well, there is always plenty to moan about and today is no exception. Another hair-brained government scheme designed to protect child from paedophiles but which of course will cost an awful lot of money and no doubt do anything except generate more paperwork and more mistakes. The article here basically extends the criminal records check for people who drive for clubs like their children's football clulb. As if the farce of CRBs is not already understood, the problem is that the scheme has the appearance of something useful, surely we want to protect our children from abuse? Of course we do but the problem as always is in the implementation. I would like to see a cost/benefit analysis since I am sure it wouldn't hold up. Here are some scenarios:

1. Somebody has been accused of some sort of abuse and is barred from working with children. Well apart from the unacceptable presumption of guilt, it is a case of one or two false accusations and the rest of someones life is in tatters.
2. Somebody with accusations who is actually a danger (like Ian Huntley) might well not be considered a risk and be allowed to work with children which defeats the whole point.
3. The 99.99% of people who are not a danger have to pay and administer the scheme like people have to do currently for CRB checks for no reason other than a paranoid government making a paranoid society.

I would like to know exactly how many cases of abuse were caused by such scenarios in a way that this scheme would have definitively prevented. I suspect very few if any. I also do not like the line, "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" because it is patently not true in more than a few instances. If I get told I have to have an ID card to work at church with children, I will stop working with children because I despise a government who is sure they know what is best for everyone and muck it up so often!