Not accepting money from a convicted paedophile sounds like a sensible idea, particularly for a children’s charity .
But beyond the initial gut reaction, which is understandable - what justification is there for denying the most vulnerable children across the UK the care they desperately need?
Barnardo’s works to banish the horrors of poverty, sexual exploitation, disability and domestic violence from the lives of children. For sure, it would be a PR disaster for the organisation to accept money from former Hasmonean pupil Miles Esterson, but cutting funding for these services cannot be the better option.
£450, the amount raised by Esterson, could by Barnardo’s own admission provide nearly four years’ worth of school sessions to educate students on grooming and what constitutes a safe relationship.
Or instead, it could give four exploited children the one-to-one support sessions with a professional which can help them to process their abuse.
Yes, Esterson’s crimes, as a spokeswoman for the charity said they suspected, are indeed “in conflict” with Barnardo’s “basis and values”.
The 33-year-old committed disgusting, traumatic acts, and the charity should have nothing to do with him.
But the £450, once handed over, would have nothing to do with him. No strings, no entitlements, and no question that Esterson would be able to come into contact with children.
Unless Barnardo’s has all the funding it will ever need or child abuse, disability and poverty are magically no longer issues in Britain, there is no ethical reason for denying children the care they need.