To not know what I was doing in summer 2002?

[manysummersago]

It was nearly twenty years ago, but I do know I was not in prison, or serving community service, which my clean dbs attests to.

I am not being flippant about safeguarding but AIBU to think that this sort of approach isn’t helpful?

YANBU for not remembering such detail. I know which job I did (no idea of any detail specific to that year) and only know where I went on holiday as it is the only time I went to the specific place.

"I think the problem is if you do want a break from employment: to travel or be a SAHM or even to say recover from an illness you then have to explain yourself years later when strictly speaking it’s not really anyone’s business."

Well you do have the option of applying for a role in a job where nobody requires protection through the DBS checking system. But in certain roles, yes, it's their business because the priority is safety.

I’d say something innocuous like ‘took the summer off, until new Uni course commenced’, or something. Just so the ‘gap’ is filled.

Yes but myhobby that’s not really the point I’m making.

This approach is one that potentially puts candidates at a disadvantage and also more importantly does absolutely nothing to make children or vulnerable adults safer.

You're overthinking it. It was a gap of around 3 months between university terms. Just say that.

If it's an enhanced DBS check then just write casual bar work and stop making a big deal out of it.

Will you be this difficult in the role itself? You know they're not accusing you of "being up to no good". They're simply following procedures that make perfect sense and are put in place to protect you and others.

Very much over thinking. If you are confident that you were working in this time just put unemployment-seeking employment

@myhobbyisouting

"which clearly means I was up to no good! Just seems really silly."

Because you're making the DBS check all
about you rather than those it is designed to protect.

Say Tom was in custody for short periods but attended education and undertook casual work in between. Would it be ok for the system to allow him to pick and choose where he leaves an unexplained gap? A gap that then can't possibly be verified?

No. But because you think it's "silly" and can't imagine how someone might use that to their advantage, the system must be wrong?

Op is right, though; DBS will show any convictions.

"This approach is one that potentially puts candidates at a disadvantage and also more importantly does absolutely nothing to make children or vulnerable adults safer."

It puts people who are trying to hide something off. So it does make people safer, even if not in every case. It is absolutely worth doing.

It doesn't put you at a disadvantage.

They just don't want gaps that's all. Paedophiles slip through the net because they will lie and as you can't go back in time to check they are telling the truth and we aren't monitoring people, they get through the cracks. Sadly it probably happens way more than you'd like to think about. Just because they haven't been in jail doesn't mean they don't look at it at home.

You are making it more difficult fit yourself though. Just use a suggestion on this page, they wont care.

I’m not really looking for advice on what to put the point is that I could make up any old nonsense, claim I worked at Woolworths or Past Times or Debenhams or Jane Norman, and no one would have any way of knowing if I was telling the truth or not.

Therefore it does nothing to keep children safe.

"Op is right, though; DBS will show any convictions"

Enhanced disclosure will. Basic wouldn't if the convictions were spent.

But it does myhobby because it means you have to explain everything over a lifetime - so let’s say for instance in 2007 I had six months off work following a nervous breakdown. I’m probably not going to want to go into that on an application form, but OTOH it was fourteen years ago and has no bearing on who I am today, but I would still have to explain it.

and so people say ‘no you don’t - lie.’

Which completely negates the point because a criminal would also lie!

"Therefore it does nothing to keep children safe."

Unless it's enough to put Tom off from lying during the gaps where he served 2 months here and there in case the employer gets suspicious and runs more than a basic check.

That's where you're being obtuse. It's not just about you.

Isn’t it the case for a lot of applications and CV. So long as the references are accurate the. The rest you could put whatever you want.

It is an enhanced check but it’s still pointless as it relies on people being honest, and someone who has been in and out of custody possibly won’t be.

I’m sorry myhobby I don’t believe I am being obtuse at all. You haven’t provided one explanation as to why this procedure keeps children safe.

@myhobbyisouting

"Op is right, though; DBS will show any convictions"

Enhanced disclosure will. Basic wouldn't if the convictions were spent.

If the role is such that she needs to explain what she did for the summer break between undergrad and postgrad, then they really should be running enhanced. Conversely, a basic check is sufficient for the role, in which case why all the nitpicking about what was essentially another university summer break?

They are running enhanced - and any role with access to children or vulnerable adults should.

Paedophiles slip through the net because they will lie and as you can't go back in time to check they are telling the truth and we aren't monitoring people

In which case it makes no difference asking people. Paedophiles will just lie and non paedophiles can't remember so have to make something up. Either way, children are not being made any safer by asking someone what they did for 3 months 20 years ago.

I wouldn’t put anything I doubt they want to know you worked at ‘dominos’ for six weeks in 2002 they mean big gaps, they will see you were at Uni that’s enough.

"You haven’t provided one explanation as to why this procedure keeps children safe."

I've said a couple of times that something as simple as being asked to officially state where you were is enough to put some people off. And therefore it is worth doing.

There are many layers to safeguarding and to the vetting process and this is just one of them. It's really no skin off your nose to fill the application out completely but it holds a benefit to the employer, which is why they do it.

It is a skin off my nose if I am having to explain a miscarriage, or other health problems, though.

And as said by a few people now, there is absolutely no way children are safer for this.

Someone who has been in custody would have it show on a DBS check. Someone not in custody but who was harming children is hardly likely to say so!

Those questions are not asked on a DBS check but they are asked as part of Keeping Children Safe checks in schools etc.

I had a gap in between graduating in June and starting work in October. (back in 1996) I went on holiday and signed on for a couple of months.

I'd just put something like Extended summer holiday.

@manysummersago

It is a skin off my nose if I am having to explain a miscarriage, or other health problems, though.

And as said by a few people now, there is absolutely no way children are safer for this.

Someone who has been in custody would have it show on a DBS check. Someone not in custody but who was harming children is hardly likely to say so!

It's there so you can't hide a period of employmet where you were let go for reasons that might be dodgy but where there was not enough proof to bring charges. Especially back then when people were ot as prepared to come forward.

I know of a case where a teacher was the subject of various inappropriate incidents at a previous employment but it never got picked up because they left it off their CV and references were not checked.