Talk

Advanced search

to agree with the new policy on vetting people volunteering with children

(112 Posts)
babybarrister Fri 11-Sep-09 08:23:43

I know it is a pain - two of my friends have already had to go through the system - but I also know that paedophiles are generally very determined and deliberately go out of their way to involve themselves with children...I have been in cases with scout leaders, etc etc

surely it is worth a relatively simple check at least to filter out some obvious no thank yous, even though I entirely accept that it would not and could not filter out all ossible offenders

rubyslippers Fri 11-Sep-09 08:27:31

but it costs so much money and would be potentially very expensive for small organistions

i don't see how it will be more robust that the current system so would be interested to know more

i think it will put off volunteers

babybarrister Fri 11-Sep-09 08:30:26

it is free if you are a volunteer as far as I have understood from Radio 4 this morning.

It is als much wider than any previous system as my friends who are a football manager of under 8s [!] and kids karate teacher [both volunteers] have never had to register with anyone or anything before

chosenone Fri 11-Sep-09 08:31:04

I don't know why it would put volunteers off though? I believe that safe guarding our children is of upmost importance and unfortunately there are still a number of cases involving, scout leaders, perepetetic musicians, sports coaches etc

rubyslippers Fri 11-Sep-09 08:33:34

but what is this going to do that the CRB doesn't?

Also, even if you have a CRB then you have to have this done as well

The vols won't have to pay but the organisation will and at £64 per go, that is nearly double the CRB fee

for many small, grass roots organisations that rely on voluneers this is a huge cost

vols may be put off as it is intrusive

I fully agree that child protection is hugely important but there is a balance?

abra1d Fri 11-Sep-09 08:36:15

It involves one quarter of the adult population. How can this be sensible or justified? Do we really believe that a quarter of adults should have to prove they are not paedophiles?

I am thinking of resigning from my various volunteer jobs.

babybarrister Fri 11-Sep-09 08:36:17

at moment most volunteers do not necessarily have to have had CRB check - see my posting above - this new scheme just effectitvely widens the net of those who have to have their CRB checks doesn't it? [albeit with some extra small requirements]

skidoodle Fri 11-Sep-09 08:39:01

Safeguarding our children is important. ]

I do not want my children's access to the kinds of health-giving, and happiness-enhancing activities that were available to me as a child, and run by volunteers, to be put at risk by an intrusive, expensive and pointless system.

abra1d Fri 11-Sep-09 08:40:24

I've already been through a CRB. That was time-consuming. I did it willingly. This just seems like a step further that I don't want to take.

This is just a typical New Labour 'let's get everyone on a database' over reaction.

abra1d Fri 11-Sep-09 08:40:25

I've already been through a CRB. That was time-consuming. I did it willingly. This just seems like a step further that I don't want to take.

This is just a typical New Labour 'let's get everyone on a database' over reaction.

ilovemydogandmrobama Fri 11-Sep-09 08:40:40

Non profit organizations pay £35.00 to have a volunteer go through a CRB check (enhanced check which is what would be necessary for working with children)

Why not just drop the charge for a CRB check for volunteers? The infrastructure is already there and it's a relatively simple form.

notcitrus Fri 11-Sep-09 08:43:07

I think it's ridiculously over-onerous for the amount of unsuitable people it would rule out, and it lulls people into a false sense of security - about 99% of child molesters have no criminal records whatsoever.

Scrap the lot and devote the money saved into training for organisers and parents on how to spot potentially dodgy activity and for the kids on when not to obey adults.

skidoodle Fri 11-Sep-09 08:44:54

Um, even if they drop the charge to the organisations for the check it will still cost (public) money for them to be done.

laneyjay Fri 11-Sep-09 08:46:11

Personally I think this is important. There is no other way that you would know whether the adults working with your children have a clean history. Unless people are regularly CRB checked, as a teacher that is at least every 3 years for me, it allows people with prior offences to still have contact with children and vulnerable people. It shouldn't be seen as an intrusion into our privacy, especially when you have nothing to hide.

TheDMshouldbeRivened Fri 11-Sep-09 08:49:02

all it does is rule out those who have already been caught. I imagine the majority of paedophiles have never had a conviction.
Better to have 2 drivers. Chaperone policy if you're worried. Thats whta happens with dd's transport.

ilovemydogandmrobama Fri 11-Sep-09 08:49:11

Um, was in response to babybarristers comment that the CRB check is free for volunteers. It isn't.

abra1d Fri 11-Sep-09 08:50:55

That is not the point, laneyjay. I have nothing to hide but I was raised to believe that as a British citizen I lived in a country where I could politely tell people, even the authorities, to mind their own business if they wanted to pry--if I wasn't doing anything illegal/immoral or wrong. That was supposed to be one distinction between Britain and various forms of dictatorship.

The state is supposed to be servant of the citizens, not some kind of Big Brother.

LadyMuck Fri 11-Sep-09 08:51:39

CRBs can be free for volunteers but they have to go through some form of agency and usually the agency charges for their admin costs.

Also if you are the sort of person who already has a passport and a driving licence say, then the CRB check is annoying and an extra hoop to leap over, but if you haven't had passport/driving licence then it may well be an unsurmountable wall. Not all of the people who volunteer to say help with a Saturday football league on a council estate are in fact literate, so that means someone else sitting down with the form.

But much more insidious is the assumption that if you have been vetted you are therefore safe with children. Yes, CRBs do pick up issues, but they do also lull people into potentially a false sense of security. IIt is easy to point the finger of blame if someone wasn't CRBed (eg the infamous Soham case), without asking the questions as to why no-one spotted a pattern of inappropriate behaviour which ultimately led to a tragedy. Equally the sad fact is that the majority of abuse is carried out by a family member of a close family friend, and safeguarding children includes considering this. Obviously the vetting and barring rules can't really help with that, but it does bother me that many people equate safeguarding with CRB checks.

So far the only thing that I see as a benefit with the new system is that the check is done per person rather than per role. I know some teacehrs who volunteer out of school and the number of CRB checks needs etc is a huge pain.

babybarrister Fri 11-Sep-09 08:53:20

well I certainly agree that CRB checks should be made free for voluntary organisations and also agree that some paedophiles do not have convictions [after al everyone has to start somewhere don't they...] however, I cannot believe that this is not going to identify anyone unsuitable is it?

skidoodle Fri 11-Sep-09 08:53:39

Wow, I didn't think there were actual people who bought the "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" line.

Amazing!

Also PMSL at "clean history". WTF is that?

This obsession with limited children's contact with adults is extremely damaging. Can we have some expensive bureaucratic system to deal with that?

LouLovesAeroplaneJelly Fri 11-Sep-09 08:57:38

There was a good comment on one of the radio stations this morning.
'if you are an ex gang member and want to educate children about the dangers of the lifestyle then you would not be allowed on the register as you had a record'
Where is the logic in that?

I was of the belief that anyone who had contact with children (even dropping them off at clubs etc) was to be registered. So does that mean I have to be documented to drop the littlest off at ballet?

pigletmania Fri 11-Sep-09 08:57:42

I think that is fine for those who regularly volunteer to give lifts to children to and from activities if they are not friends or familiy of the parents of the children. But its silly say if my friend give my dd a lift on a regular basis to school say with her other children or my dd auntie takes my dd to activities as i dont drive and hubbie at work a lot of the time.

abra1d Fri 11-Sep-09 09:00:16

'I think that is fine for those who regularly volunteer to give lifts to children to and from activities if they are not friends or familiy of the parents of the children'

Er why??

The thing people don't realise is that this legislation strikes at exactly the kind of volunteers organisations want: people who will actually make a REGULAR commitment to volunteer. Who will turn up week after week without being asked or reminded.

skidoodle Fri 11-Sep-09 09:02:08

But the biggest risk comes from friends and family. So why are they getting a free pass?

LadyMuck Fri 11-Sep-09 09:04:04

The lifts thing is being misquoted a lot I think. If "the organisation" provides transport, which may consist of some volunteers and cars, then those volunteers must be checked. Parents can make any private arrangements amongst themselves if they want.

So if your ballet class goes to see a show and your dd might be driven by any one of a number of volunteers chosen by the ballet school then yes, those volunteers would need to be checked. If on the other hand the school tells parents that they are responsible for getting their dcs to the show, and you ask another parent for a lift then they don't need a check.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now