DBS and soft play

I’m on the DBS renewal it refreshes yearly ( all online) and i get to pay for that privilege myself. Enhanced due to working in NHS Peads.

As for soft play, i mean the place will also be full of parents… some will not be the most upstanding of people! Arent parents responsible for supervising rather than the staff anyway?

Yeah, the reality is that this would be an expectation for parents to fund something that many of us wouldn't consider important, because we actually supervise our DC and/or go to those soft plays where the staff have no actual interaction with the kids anyway. These are also not particularly attractive jobs, they aren't beating people off with a shitty stick for low paid, inflexible roles.

If my local soft play ended up having to shut because it wasn't practical to staff and fund this, I would not be impressed.

There are any number of places where the onus is on parents to supervise but I kind of would still prefer a sex offender not to be in charge!

As Pp have said, the staff don't work with the kids and the parents are with the kids.

Where would you draw the line on this? what about theme parks, local attractions etc that allow children in. Should they all be DBS checked as well?

I used to run a toddler group when DD was little, and we didn't need DBS checks because the parents had to stay with their children.

surely the fact it's for under 8, so the very little ones, means it should be a place where parents actually supervise their kids?

I didn’t bother reporting it as I wasn’t 100% sure if it was a rule or not… and the point of your post wasn’t to get people to sign the petition and I think it’s a good topic to debate anyway. I just wanted to mention it in case you find your post disappears or gets moved!

You haven’t addressed the argument that the other parents present a greater risk to children than staff. What do you think about that, and how could that be improved?

You say about the cost issue shouldn’t be a reason not to do it - but ultimately, especially with high staff turnover, it has to factor in or the business will go under. Consider this - soft play 1 is £2 per child cheaper than soft play 2 because the second does DBS checks. You have 2 or 3 children - or maybe you’re a childminder looking for a wet weather morning activity so have a number in your care. This is adding £4/£6 or even more on to every visit. Maybe the drinks are more expensive too? And ultimately you know that it doesn’t guarantee the kids will be safe, it just means the people working there have never been caught, and does nothing to reduce the risk from any other adults there. Which soft play are you going to go to? I know I’m picking the cheaper one. I suspect many parents would say the same. And so the DBS checked one goes out of business.

what a ridiculous idea.

Supervise your own children, as you should be doing, and you'll be fine.

It would make lazy parents even more lazy, and give them even more excuse to neglect their kids there. Terrible and stupid idea.

I've never heard of ones with arts and crafts, ours are of the running around screeching variety. That would make more sense for a predator to target than a job making toasties, I agree.

Lots of softplay staff interact with the children. There are admin and food prep roles as well, but there is also supervising the drop slide/softplay/baby area and running extra activities (ours does art and craft and music on different days).

(I don't expect them to have a DBS check, but it's silly to suggest that softplay staff ONLY do admin and food prep and don't spend time with the children).

So there isn't any proof then?

I did actually want to hear about evidence that soft play jobs were a bit of a beacon for predators. It would've surprised me, because such roles do not actually involve much interaction with children. Which is of course not the same thing as merely being in proximity, as loads of roles involve being around kids in public without the need for interaction- supermarket staff for example. But I'm not a paedo expert and would've carefully considered anything that shed more light than I can on the matter, had it been posted.

That isn’t what I said at all, and it is just coming across as unnecessarily argumentative to be honest.

I mean, most soft plays are for under eights (as a rough guide) so if you don’t think that’s a job with close proximity to children we won’t agree and there probably isn’t much point in a back and forth.

No, is there any proof that people sexually attracted to children target this one particular role that involves admin and/or food prep rather than actual interaction?

That's not a trick question. I do actually want to know.

Is there any proof that people sexually attracted to children try to get jobs that put them in close proximity to children?

Erm …

Is there any proof of this?

I didn't realise how relaxed the process used to be. I turned 18 in the year 2000 and every voluntary role I've done has involved CRB/ DBS checks and annual updates

They only brought in CRB/DBS checking in the early 00,s after Ian Huntley its entirely possible the Pp was working as a childminder before it came in.

No but it would still be extremely risky behaviour and likely to get attention straight away.

You’re meant to sign up to the annual update service…

Not all abuse involves targeting and grooming, though: it is worth bearing that in mind.

Yes but it woukd be extremely risky behaviour to target a child in soft play and they would likely get caught straight away.

I guess it depends when the Pp was chikd minding ?
Bearing in mind CRB as it was then known only came after Ian Huntley was convicted ,and that was in the early 00,s
I was a mental health nurse up until about 10 years and only had one random CRB check in 20 or so years as it just wasent checked for when I qualified in the mid 90,s.

Anything that gets proximity to children

Unfortunately, because jobs like that are a bit of a beacon for sex offenders.

In soft plays? I thought the ones who were trying to target kids through their work weee more likely to choose something where you actually build up relationships with individual kids and get time with them by themselves.

Unfortunately, because jobs like that are a bit of a beacon for sex offenders. It is probably true that any danger is minimal and of course parents should be supervising but at the same time, the assumption in most of those places is that the children go and play while the adults sit down. And it’s not possible to supervise 100% if you have more than one child either.