Veritas report due tomorrow (Thursday) at midday re: Aimee Challenor

The fact was Huntley lived in a school caretakers house on the grounds of the school was probably instrumental in why the girls entered the house rather than being told their TA was inside.

Has anyone posted up the fact that the Guardian has covered this today?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/12/green-party-failed-to-properly-investigate-child-abuser-report?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Most people appear to think Huntley worked at the school the victims were pupils at. He didn't. They went into the house of someone who worked in the school, and were killed by her boyfriend.

Huntley lived in a house on the Soham Village College site.

The reasons why CRB evolved were that a predatory offender would not have become employed as a caretaker of a school with onsite accomadation if the police intelligence from a number of forces had been available at the time of his interview.

There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about CRB/DBS

YY - including amongst politicians and many others who should know better. I still recall a senior (Labour) minister saying when CRBs were brought in that 'parents would be able to be 100% confident their children were now safe at school'. Any fool knows that all one of these things proves is that the person named (if accurately named) within the application has no convictions for offences, not that they are 'safe' for children to be around.

Moreover, I discovered when I recently had to complete a DBS application (having done CRBs in the past) that they've made the search less 'searching' than it was - you now only have to give your address for the past 3 years.

ReflectentMonatomism

You are making all sorts of assetions that are not accurate.
I'm not going to derail the thread about the details around Huntley's crimes and the circumstances in Soham but you are wrong about many aspects here.

Coventry Pride were highlighted because AC was in a position of authority there as she was in the GP. As soon as she mentioned her fathers charges they took steps to ensure that he was not allowed to be involved in the organisation.

The scouts was an organisation only DC was involved in so the parallel is not the same.

Schools do need to DBS check adults who work with children.

They don't, and now can't, get them for helpers who only work supervised.

The Soham parallel is instructive. Huntley wasn't the caretaker at the school the victims attended. The victims did not know him. The link was that Huntley's partner, Maxine Carr, was working at the school the victims attended. Carr had no recorded intelligence against her and would have passed any disclosure scheme you care to name.

Unless we are proposing that people who work with children need to have all people who live in the same house as them given enhanced DBS including soft intelligence, which would cause almost all volunteering to stop simply on the grounds of "meh, can't be arsed" as well as the massive increase in workload, DBS schemes would not have made any difference.

Most people appear to think Huntley worked at the school the victims were pupils at. He didn't. They went into the house of someone who worked in the school, and were killed by her boyfriend.

What are the parallels with Coventry Pride and not the cub scouts (AC’s role as LGBTQ+ spokesperson or the fact that DC and AC were involved in both? Or something I am missing?)

Aimee Challenor had a senior role in both Coventry Pride (Trustee) and The Green Party and David Challenor was also involved with both organisations,

Aimee Challenor notified both organisations about her father's arrest.

The parallel is very clear.

Aimee Challenor did not have a senior role with the Scouts.

The scope of the Veritas enquiry must be recognised.

Thanks Rowantrees (point several pages back!)

What are the parallels with Coventry Pride and not the cub scouts (AC’s role as LGBTQ+ spokesperson or the fact that DC and AC were involved in both? Or something I am missing?)

I need to go back and read the Verita brief, but as far as I recall it related only to the GP so it is not clear why Coventry Pride were singled out as the comparator organisation and not any other organisation where safe guarding should have been an issue. Either focus on the GP only or consider the responses to all DC’s known interactions in assessing the GP’s (in)actions.

A minor point, just seems strange that Verita reference the Cub Scout involvement but do not at least question what happened there.

Schools lost a lot of classroom helpers fifteen years ago, because hardworking respectable families didn't want the school to know that twenty years previously they had a conviction for shop lifting or affray. DBS needs to be proportionate to risk, and needs to have some evidence that it reduces that risk.

Schools do need to DBS check adults who work with children.
The CRB system was formed specifically because of the most serious of crimes against two girls Holly Wells and Jessicca Chapman by the caretaker of Soham Village College, Ian Huntley.

There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about CRB/DBS (some can be seen on this thread)

The key issue is that there should be better understanding about Safeguarding, why DBS is needed and how the information will be used and held.

Those responsible for organising the DBS as they work with children and vulnerable adults will by definition understand and operate within professional confidentiality.

I've worked in environments where CRB/DBS was required. Yes, some volunteers had concerns and these were able to be dealt with appropriately and professionally.

If someone doesn't want to have a DBS check for whatever reason then no they shouldn't be working in the portential risk situations which require one.

The priority will always be the Safeguarding of the vulnerable.

Not without this being public (and publicised) information no.

Peter Hain: In 1972 a private prosecution resulted in Hain's conviction for criminal conspiracy at the Old Bailey for which he was fined £200. The prosecution was funded largely from apartheid-supporting whites in South Africa due to his campaign against white-only South African sports tours. He was acquitted of three other conspiracy counts after defending himself in the four week trial described in the book edited by Derek Humphry, Cricket Conspiracy (1972).

You think that potentially disqualifies him from being an MP? Seriously?

Quite an overlap with narcissism there, then.

Yes. This is the elephant in the room. My personal identity trumps other people's rights to be protected by robust systems.

Its important to recognise that DBS checks are part of safeguarding policies within some organisations, not all.

And that, contrary to popular belief, you can't demand that your staff and volunteers are checked at random, nor can you obtain a certificate at random. Although the crazy vetting and barring project was about this, you can only obtain a disclosure certificate if you are going to work in particular, specified occupations for particular employers or volunteer organisations.

Schools lost a lot of classroom helpers fifteen years ago, because hardworking respectable families didn't want the school to know that twenty years previously they had a conviction for shop lifting or affray. DBS needs to be proportionate to risk, and needs to have some evidence that it reduces that risk. Even in its current form that evidence is more "stands to reason, innit?" than solid. Extending it further would be both intrusive and pointless.

On other threads I have seen reference to 'Trans-mothers' offering to support TG teens....in place of their own 'unsupportive' families

Yes, LM refers to one.

So if someone has a conviction for, say, criminal conspiracy, they should not be an MP?

Not without this being public (and publicised) information no.

Thanks to those who answered my earlier post about DBS/CRB checks, because this thread has highlighted that the Green Party didn't have any safeguarding procedures in place, because they are so desperate for members, that they would rather sweep everything under the carpet and hope nothing happens.

Its important to recognise that DBS checks are part of safeguarding policies within some organisations, not all.

They are for specific situations.

Understanding Safeguarding, and having Safeguarding policies are different things.

As with any policy it has to be effective.

Because DBS checking goes far beyond matters concerning children, it covers all violent and non violent crime, and I believe that as MP's are serving in the highest offices of the land, they should be put under more scrutiny than anyone else.

I'm not sure the DBS system is appropriate (as it stands for MPs)
DBS is in place so that employers, who have the duty of care towards children and vulnerable adults, are able to screen their employees (including volunteers) as is neccessary for their role.

Whether MPs should have background checks done which is comparable to the DBS would be a matter (I presume) for their local party at the point of selection.

I would presume there is something in place.

Your link shows precisely why the DBS checks have to be applied and have to be consistent - no expunging details simply because certain groups feel it conflicts with their "human rights" and "feely, feely" emotions.

The issue with the case is that it could create precedent.

This then risks loopholes being created, which as we know, will always be exploited by those intent on doing so to cause serious harm or for personal gain.
Exactly the reason why the CRB ststem was created.

as MP's are serving in the highest offices of the land, they should be put under more scrutiny than anyone else.

So if someone has a conviction for, say, criminal conspiracy, they should not be an MP?

ROwan,

Your link shows precisely why the DBS checks have to be applied and have to be consistent - no expunging details simply because certain groups feel it conflicts with their "human rights" and "feely, feely" emotions.

And it would be interesting to see the number of young people who go to a Stonewall residential as gay or lesbian and come back 2 days later identifying as transgender.

Cos it seems to be a lot of them.

www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/blog/why-we-need-array-trans-role-models

"In 2013, I got a place on Stonewall’s Young Leaders programme. On the final day of the programme the amazing Ruth Hunt gave us a speech about being authentic, but as she spoke I kept my head down and avoided eye contact with all the new friends I’d made because I was lying to them all and, more importantly, lying to myself.

I was transgender.

I decided to be authentic and “came out” a week or so later (thanks Ruth babes)".

"someone recommended I should join a political party, so I joined the Green Party.

Nothing about identifying with aims and ethos. Entryist.

Reflectent

"Why do you think MPs should be DBS checked?"

Because DBS checking goes far beyond matters concerning children, it covers all violent and non violent crime, and I believe that as MP's are serving in the highest offices of the land, they should be put under more scrutiny than anyone else.

Potential challenges to the DBS function:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3370916-influential-criminal-justice-charity-campaigning-for-removal-of-minor-gender-specific-offences-from-dbs-checks

Exactly, R0

Similarly and as an aside (and I know we know this, but it is worth repeating occasionally), a GRC is not some kind of good character certificate either. It is perfectly possible to meet the criteria for a GRC whilst also having a string of criminal convictions for sexual assault / other crimes