Kirstie Allsopp let son Oscar go interrailing in Europe - that's not child abuse so why has he got a 'file'?

An interrailing trip across Europe is not child abuse - so why on earth has Kirsty Allsopp been told by social services her child’s details will be ‘kept on file’? The Location, Location, Location presenter explained she was hit with a malicious complaint and she effectively had no case to answer, yet her son now has ‘a file’ and that’s just not right.

Allsopp was contacted by social services for allowing her 15-year-old son, Oscar, to go interrailing across Europe with his 16-year-old friend this summer, leading to her being contacted by a social worker who informed her a file had been opened after child protection concerns were raised.

The 53-year-old told The Mail on Sunday: “I just felt sick – absolutely sick. Then I was cross. I was very, very cross. It was just so extraordinary. I was in a parallel universe where they were actually taking this seriously. I have broken no law and nothing about allowing my child to travel around Europe is neglectful.”

The social worker questioned what safeguards were put in place for her son’s trip, Allsopp says, but would not say how the referral had been made or by whom, insisting every referral must be looked into. All of which I get. If someone makes a complaint, it should be followed up, and of course details of the person who has raised concerns cannot be divulged. Fine. But once the questions have been asked and it has been established no wrong-doing has taken place, that should be it.

However, the council worker said a file had been opened on Oscar, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), her local council, could keep the file open “in case there was another referral” and they needed to come to her house and “look into this further”.

She told the Mail: “For me, that was the sucker punch – the idea this file might continue existing. What (the official) said to me was, ‘if in six months there was another referral and we needed to come to your house and look into this further, it would be important that we had kept a note of the first referral’. That was the Orwellian moment. The fact it was maliciously done wasn’t coming home to her.”

And this is what’s so utterly appalling. Why would this incident ever need to be ‘referred to’ in future if they have established she has done nothing wrong? It’s akin to getting a criminal record just because someone accused you of doing something you didn’t do.

What’s to stop anyone from targeting other celebrities out of spite, or the mum they’ve fallen out with in the playground, or the family down the road who park inconsiderately, or anyone else someone feels malevolent towards? Not only does the innocent target have to deal with the deeply unpleasant experience of explaining their parenting to a complete stranger judging whether you’re good enough, but also, there will be a file at County Hall suggesting, for absolutely no reason, you might suddenly become a bad parent because a liar once said you were.

And the response from the council? Well, a spokesperson for RBKC told the paper: “Safeguarding children is an absolute priority. We take any referral we receive very seriously and we have a statutory responsibility for children under 18 years of age.”

Which in no way addresses the concerns raised by Allsopp. Welcome to Nineteen Eighty-Four.