To think a DBS check is not 100% guarantee?

[PurplePenguins]

Just a general discussion between 4 of us. All of us have children but I work with vulnerable children (which maybe clouding my judgement) while the other three are office bods. I agree with DBS checks, they prevent those convicted of offences such as child abuse, violence and fraud working with vulnerable people. I have had numerous DBS checks over the course of my career, but I feel there is always a chance that someone unsuitable could get through as they have never been caught. 2 of my friends disagree. They feel that DBS means that you are not that sort of person at all. The other friend is of the opinion that it is possible, but highly unlikely. AIBU or are they?

voiletfeather,
I don't know how they do the checks, but sex offenders are deviant, shady (by nature) and will do any thing to gain access to kids/venerable adults. So whole new names, identities, and different spellings too.
So John Smith is a barred teacher, Jon Smith/John Smyth are not. So if that intelligence is missing, IE they use John Smyth as well they get through.
So you need skilled operatives and employers who ask the right questions.
Plus it's PNC bureau's who update the data base and sex register's lists daily, as new offenders are sentenced and add to it, it is harrowing at times.
But thanks to Theresa May and Tory party cutbacks, our PNC bureau is now omnicompetent and covers ANPR and conviction service and firearms, and court services out of office hours (0830-1400) and weekends.
The bureau is cut to the bone, it works 12 hour shifts, and there is regularly only 2 staff on duty, 1 covering ANPR and 1 PNC, the next shift can walk into 100's off Bichard type requests and DBS searches and people needing to be added to sex offenders register.

Imagine that takes 24 hours to update, and the paedophile's DBS request is cleared whilst it is sitting in the to do box. DBS is just a veneer, to make the general public think things have changed/improved since Soham. Rotherham, Telford, Newcastle, Oldham, sadly prove otherwise.

It’s like Developed Vetting in the Civil Service. When you pass you are up there with Burgess, Philby and Maclean.

Better than nothing but not a panacea.

What I love is that in addition to your dbs you have to do an extra questionnaire annually where you have to say yes or no to a whole bunch of ‘have you abused a child in the past year?’ type questions. 🤔 Honestly, who would answer yes to any of those even if they have (it’s not convictions btw, I’m in a notifiable profession)

I’m not sure that’s true, Talk.

CRB checks were in place before the Soham murders. Huntley was checked by Cambridgeshire and another police force. He slipped through those checks partly because he hadn’t been convicted of anything relevant, partly because the police weren’t aware of some of the allegations that had been made to children’s services about him and possibly partly due to human error due to massive workload.

rafa
According to Wikipedia, CRB was in a 1997 act but only launched in March 2002 in an utterly half heated way.
List 99 was only started in May 2002
The Soham murders were in August 2002
Adult List 99 did not come in till 2004

Funny how we are all so used to it that we feel it must have been there for ever

I worked in two schools before Soham, and I definitely had some kind of check at each. I think it was referred to as a police check? Perhaps it was optional at the time.

Ian Huntley would show things on a current dbs. Be a use it would show the reports to safeguarding team, and the times he was interviewed under caution for example.

A DBS check is only as good as the day its carried out on. You could get a clear check today and carry out a crime tomorrow. Ive also had numerous done over the years due to youth work

"Things like being arrested (but not charged), being interviewed under caution, employer investigations and disciplinary outcomes. It was introduced to ensure that those people who had perhaps been suspected and even interviewed (such as Ian Huntley) were flagged."

What's to stop people making false accusations in this 'soft' section?

It can only be referred to dbs by police, employer or safeguarding team. They have to submit a file of information/evidence.

The most common is police referrals. Where someone is arrested and interviewed, but there isn't enough evidence for CPS to take forward.

Yes there was a system in place prior to crb.

It might not have been called a CRB check until March 2002, but there was definitely a system in place. I thought Huntley was the reason enhanced ones were created. Because even if his check had been done properly it would have flagged up a conviction that wouldn’t necessarily have barred him from working in a school but wouldn’t have flagged up all the relevant stuff which he was never charged with.

Because even if his check had been done properly it would have flagged up a conviction that wouldn’t necessarily have barred him from working in a school but wouldn’t have flagged up all the relevant stuff which he was never charged with

An enhanced dbs would.

My understanding is the reason huntley passed his checks and gained a job in a school, was because at that time there was no national database.

Pnc, as referred to above, holds arrests, charges and convictions. Local forces hold all the info on “soft” stuff, accusations, interviews etc.

So cambridgeshire checked pnc and locals, no convictions and he’d recently moved to the area so nothing showed. If they’d have checked with the force in the area he used to live in, his previous form would have come to light.

This was the finding of the bichard enquiry, and why pnd was developed. Pnd is basically a data dump of all forces local records. But it means dbs checks are done nationally, so an offender can’t move to a new area to avoid previous accusations.

Sorry the only way to keep children and vulnerable persons safe is for the whole of society to keep an eye on them. I have had CRB and DBS, from my rugby coaching roles. We also had to attend annual safeguarding courses and pass them, to keep our badges, also know who are safeguarding leads where and how to report concerns to who, where and when.
How many of the general public would know any of this
We where told you should report the minor of concerns through the proper channels and let the experts decide if it was a problem, as too many reported, and yours may the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle that saves a vulnerable person
Finally our head of safeguarding for 20 years with numerous CRB and DBS passes, was arrested for abusing their own grandchildren and their friends, had been for 10 years.

Newname,
Not totally true, Huntley moved to Cambridgeshire and applied, Cambridgeshire Police did checks and ask Humberside if he had any convictions etc, Humberside did the checks requested and replied correctly NONE. My wife team did them, CORRECTLY at the time.
Then Soham happened.
The shit Home Office/Government needed a scapegoat, and wrongly the CC of Humberside Police, a brilliant man, was advised to save data protection stopped them passing on information. He was attacked mercilessly in the press, IMO wrongly and unfairly. Humberside Police took a kicking and Cambridgeshire police came out smelling of roses, when they failed to ask the right questions.
But even then Huntley would not have been disbarred as they weren't convictions and no charges had been pressed, even now they wouldn't be allow to be given in a court case.
Bichard report was a farce, and a whitewash to tar Humberside Police with the Blame and save the face of the home office.
Quite rightly Humberside Police board refused to Sack the CC, and even now people like my wife despise the witch hunt and the outcome of Bichard.
She will tell you the enquires are close to impossible to complete in the time scales given. Imagine trying to log every interaction with a suspect going back years, even if it was a random road side stop.
Like I said it was veneer to make the public think the government know what it was doing.
I don't and never have worked for Humberside Police, just married a PNC operator, but I truly despise the way they where treated, my wife team, who did everything by the book, faced months of audits and threats of the sack, not by their own force, but from idiots from the Home office and Bichard himself, the arrogant T**t

In my experience criminals especially abusers change their names by deed poll, or even dare I mention GRCs ,and likely to lie so DRBs are not necessarily telling you what you need to know.

Interesting you should talk about IH who now wants to change his name and identify as a woman. QED

Enhanced DBS is a good system. It means that people such as Ian Huntley, with a record to match, would be flagged up under the 'new' system. It works well in that addresses issues faced previously (such as a lack of communication between police forces, leading to agencies not getting the full picture) and that it is a relatively good way to safeguard children and the vulnerable. It is better than nothing.

Nothing, however is foolproof. Child abusers are clever, and they may play the long game. They know how to know to cheat the system, and how not to get caught. DBS is good to an extent but it will never be perfect, for the plain and simple fact that not every paedophile will have a record. It doesn't mean a person hasn't abused a child. It simply means a person hasn't been caught. As sad as it is, child abuse will never end. We can think up ways of reducing the harm, and I'm not suggesting that DBS should be scrapped at all. But the simple fact is that DBS is not, nor ever will me, a way of 100% safeguarding children. There will always be someone out there who slips through the net. All we can do is keep reviewing systems, improving systems and doing our upmost to protect children and the elderly.

*elderly should be vulnerable!

We where told you should report the minor of concerns through the proper channels and let the experts decide if it was a problem, as too many reported, and yours may the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle that saves a vulnerable person

My new volunteers at the playscheme/after school care are nearly always surprised when we provide them with the information on where to report concerns about those managing the service, or concerns about any child they feel they couldn't bring to us.

Although they are often (despite being most of their way through college courses) also surprised when it's pointed out that a lot of the rules around not being alone with a child etc are as much for their protection as they are the child so I think safeguarding is still often taught as just as "report to your CP designate".

Your family pends are extremely naive. The NSPCC estimates 3% of paedophiles are convicted.