CRB checks for all parents

[KIMItheThreadSlayer]

The world HAS gone mad, Fair enough, DH is a cubs helper and has been checked, and I do think all helpers with children should be checked, but if my friend picks up my child from school one day a week every week, is that going to be seen as needing a CRB check, .....

Parents who regularly drive children for sports or social clubs will have to be vetted or face fines of up to £5,000 under new rules.

Along with parents who host foreign exchange students, they will fall under the scope of the Vetting and Barring Scheme, the Home Office has confirmed.

The measures to stop paedophiles are being introduced from next month in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Critics have branded them "insulting" and say they could deter volunteers.

A separate but aligned scheme is being set up in Scotland, to be introduced next year.

Also, anyone barred in any part of the UK will be barred from working with children and vulnerable adults anywhere else.

'Frequent, intensive'

Informal arrangements between parents will not be covered, but anyone taking part in activities involving "frequent" or "intensive" contact with children or vulnerable adults three times in a month, every month, or once overnight, must register, it has emerged.

"The government's Vetting and Barring Scheme is a child of moral panic "

Mark Easton

BBC's home editor

Read Mark's thoughts in full

Q&A: Vetting and barring scheme

Mark Easton

All 300,000 school governors, as well as every doctor, nurse, teacher, dentist and prison officer will also have to sign up.

It is thought that 11.3 million people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland - close to one in four of all adults - may register with the Home Office's Independent Safeguarding Authority [ISA].

According to BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton it is thought out of that 11.3 million, "something will come up", such as a conviction, for about one million.

"Of those million, they reckon 40,000 will be told they are unsuitable to work in those regulated areas," he said.

After November 2010 failure to register could lead to criminal prosecution and fine. The clubs themselves also face a £5,000 penalty for using non-vetted volunteers.

Children's minister Delyth Morgan said: "It is about ensuring that people in a position of trust that work frequently and intensively with children are safe to do so.

"Ultimately safeguarding children is the government's priority."

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said: "This new regime has the potential to be a real disaster for activities involving young people.

"We are going to drive away volunteers, we'll see clubs and activities close down and we'll end up with more bored young people on our streets."

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the government was "in danger of creating a world in which we think every adult who approaches children means to do them harm".

But John O'Brien, programme director of the Vetting and Barring Scheme, said it would be a "once-only, simple step". He denied it was a "presumption of guilt".

He told the BBC's Today programme: "We want to make sure we have got appropriate safeguards in place so that people with backgrounds we don't want to work with children and vulnerable adults are not entering the workplace."

HAVE YOUR SAY

"Our children need protection but this is going too far"

Fran Banks, Essex

Send us your comments

Bob Reitemeier, chief executive of the Children's Society, said the new safeguards were the result of many years of research into abuse.

"What we have to understand is there's a great amount of learning that has been taking place over the years in looking at how people are abused and we have to apply that learning."

'Soft intelligence'

The scheme was recommended by the Bichard report into the Soham murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman by college caretaker Ian Huntley.

Huntley had been given the job despite previous allegations of sex with under-age girls, which were not passed on.

Two hundred case workers at the ISA's Darlington base will collect information from police, professional bodies and employers, before ruling who is barred.

Ian Huntley

Even those like Huntley, without a criminal record, could be barred if officials are convinced by other "soft intelligence" against them.

Estimates suggest the number of people facing a ban will double to 40,000 once the scheme is up and running.

Those registered will face continuing scrutiny, with existing registrations reconsidered if new evidence is disclosed.

However, Soham report author Sir Michael Bichard suggested the scheme could be revised.

He told the Independent newspaper last month: "If you visit one school in January, and then don't visit that school again, but visit another school in February and another in March, is that frequent or intensive?"

He was speaking after a number of authors, including Philip Pullman and Michael Morpurgo, complained the requirement was "insulting" and pledged to quit school visits.

Mr Pullman described the scheme as "rather dispiriting and sinister".

"It's so ludicrous that it's almost funny," he said.

Registration will cost £64 in England and Wales, but unpaid volunteers will be exempt from the charge.

The mind boggles.

You are an mmr 'skeptic' (in actuallity a cynic) so distrust your GP yet would trust your children with a stranger on the internet...

Gah

I agree about the trust in society thing. Since time immemorial this is how human society has functioned. I think it is immensley damaging to all of us, children and adults, that there can be no interaction between a child and an adult without an official checking that the adult is 'trustworthy'. I am convinced that a lot of problems we now have are down to individuals reliquishing responsibility for themselves to the state. (I'm thinking in particular of the mother of the 2 boys who viscously attacked 2 other boys. She said she had told SS to take them into care though this is an extreme example). The state encourages our helplessness as it is a form of control over us.

It amazes me constantly that every extra control, law and measure to prevent us taking more responsibility for our lives is greeted on here with a 'well if it protects 1 child/stops 1 traffic accident/prevents 1 person becoming obese it must be worth it'. Actually, I don't think any of these new rules and regs are worth giving up basic freedoms for, and especially the freedom to bring my child up as I see fit. Bugger the crb checks - they have been proved time and again to not work (think about the nurseries recently that have been implicated in child abuse investigations).

This new check is just another useless 'must be seen to be doing something' knee-jerk reaction from a frighteningly control-freaky government.

And a way of getting more and more of us onto a database of course.

The problem with giving authority too many powers is that when they have them, they will be used.

Take the stop and search under secion 44 of the terrorism act. These searches have increased year on year, and yet only 0.1% of those stopped go onto to be charged (never mind convicted in a court of law). As a society we allow this happen because we are all very paranoid about terrorism.... and AFAIK the fact that you were stopped under section 44 (but not charged) could well find its way onto an enhanced CRB.

In other words, when we give away our freedom to fight something dreadful, we have the potential of unwittingly releasing a monster. Measures to prevent paedophiles from working with children have the potential to be spread far more widely than they were originally intended. I suspect the consequences for social mobility will be devastating.

Remember when they said that the terrorism Acot wouldn't be used to interfere with freedom of speech and then used it against an 72 year Labour Party member who was ejected from their conference for heckling.

Trust only worked as a rule of thumb in 'time immemorial' when communities were small and everyone knew each other. If someone was to transgress, everyone would know who did it and they would have a very good chance of being punished. The world is a very different place today - there are so many more people and only a few of us actually know each other.

Trust has to be earned. It is not a given. You learn that at your, or your kids, peril.

That's just the slippery slope reasoning The Mail falls down Madsometimes, and why the DM hating liberals on MN do it themselves at every opportunbity. It is mad.

Just read the OP again and I'm a bit about Philip Pullman and Michael Morpurgo. As if they should be exepmt becasue they are VIP's.

MrsE I agree with you that communities are now large. I agree that people working with children in a position of trust need vetting.

The slippery slope is when the vetting is being expanded to jobs where people do not work with children, but may come into contact with them, perhaps, sometimes, maybe. The same for contact with vulnerable adults. People working in hospitals, in the public sector, but not working in schools or directly with children.

Many positions which were once open to ex-offenders, will now be barred to them. The question is, how will ex-offenders be able to continue with their lives if their past follows them everywhere they go? The people most likely to have an offending past are those who have had a difficult upbringing. This is what I am referring to when I state that social mobility will be eroded.

MrsEricBanaMT Wed 16-Sep-09 13:52:15 Add a message | Report post | Contact poster

"Just read the OP again and I'm a bit about Philip Pullman and Michael Morpurgo. As if they should be exepmt becasue they are VIP's."

They should be exempt not because they are VIPs but because the nature of their role means they are never left alone with a child and hence in a position to abuse. When Morpurgo visits a school he will be met by the head at the gates, walked into a room where he speaks to an audience of at least 30 children, probably more, in the presence of at least one teacher: how could he possibly present a danger to a child under those circumstances?

moobell, I know what it's like: I was in the same position when a paediatrician failed to diagnose my dd's genetic joint condition and concluded since there was no physical reason for her being in pain (i.e. he couldn't see anything on the x-rays), she must be traumatised and any child trauma is likely to be sexual abuse

thankfully this never went to court, as she was seen by a specialist who diagnosed her

but it could so easily have happened to us too

as it is, I doubt I would get the check done as I am an immigrant and came into the country at the age of 29

so any after-school activity that depends on my taking turns in picking children up will be closed to my dcs

Yes, you can moot what might happen on that slipperly slope, but not do things for fear falling down said slippery slope were inevitable. Just knowing the slippery slope is there is often enough to stop folk falling down it. When it comes to kids and vulnerable adults, the maxim I'd favour is 'better safe than sorry'. I don't give a Higgs Boson if that stops people with questionable records getting jobs with vulnerable people. There are plenty of jobs without access to vunlerable people.

AS for ex offenders, it depends on what the offense was. You can still get a CRB check after a certain amount of time if that crime was not connected with violence. If it was, tough. Ex-offenders play with the hand they are dealt, just like the rest of us. It's not about discrimination against ex-offenders it's about protection of vulnerable people.

Social mobility will be in no danger of being eroded becasue some people are deemed unsuitable to work with kids and vulnerable adults. It happens already. There is not a huge line of ex-offenders queuing up to work with kids, not a line long enough to have a negative effect on social mobility anyway.

Cory, what about when he goes to the loo? Has a wander for half an hour? What your saying is either they are under supervision all the time, even when they go to the loo, which I would imagine they wouldn't be too pleased about, or they get a CRB check to show respect for the saftey of the kids they want to reach.

MrsEricBanaMT Wed 16-Sep-09 15:23:04 Add a message | Report post | Contact poster

"Cory, what about when he goes to the loo? Has a wander for half an hour? What your saying is either they are under supervision all the time, even when they go to the loo, which I would imagine they wouldn't be too pleased about, or they get a CRB check to show respect for the saftey of the kids they want to reach."

I'd be very surprised if he gets to wander around the school on his own for half an hour. Or isn't expected to use the staff loo. My experience of visiting schools is that you get ushered in and then you get ushered out. You are not left to wander the corridors aimlessly.

I notice that you do not answer my point about people like myself or moobell: people who are not ex-offenders, and who have never done anything wrong, but who might have a record because some hysterical person once made an allegation against them- an allegation that has since proved wrong

because that is the whole point- however much it has been proved that the allegation was wrong, that there was a misdiagnosis or even a malicious allegation, it will still appear against your name; this is not just about ex-offenders, but about anyone who has ever (however wrongly) been suspected of anything, even if their name has been cleared

also, what about those of us who are foreigners? in some schools that might be the majority of the parents; will the difficult/cost of doing foreign CRB checks mean that only the small native minority will be allowed to go on trips to the zoo etc?

and what about work placements? These checks are meant to apply for anyone coming into contact with a child under 18: does that mean that a 17yo cannot take a work placement until every single adult of the firm- from the boss down to the cleaner- has been CRB-checked?

and what about week-end jobs? if a 16yo gets a job shelf-stacking, will every single employee have to be CRB-checked? and what about the customers?

But MT - the trust in society is surely a basic tenet of living in Britain, ie innocent until proven guilty? Everything the current government does just makes more criminals of law-abiding citizens. And the vast, vast majority of people are law-abiding and would never abuse a child in any way. This government goes way too far in their ridiculous attempts at protecting us from ourselves. Nobody is allowed to exercise their own judgement and the consequence is that everyone's judgement is impaired so that the 'every adult is a paedophile' rubbish that the government, NSPCC, DM etc, are all peddling is actually listened to and believed when we should be ridiculing such a suggestion out of existance.

I think once this all starts, it will just spiral out of control. Everyone will need to be vetted for anything and everything. It's just madness.

If this happens, I just won't be volunteering to help out at any groups. It would put me right off having to fill out a form for every group I was to help out with. Blah. No thanks.

What a total waste of paper for a start

I have worked in schools as an actor and you are regularly left alone. We too were told we could use staff loos, but weren't shown where they were. When you've got to go and you're in an unfamiliar environment, you;ve got to go!

You can still get a CRB regardkess of what people say about you. The point is if you have been charged. A friend of mine has a partner who used to be a heroin addict and was caught and charged with that. He got a CRB check when she applied to be a child minder. What about, what about? There are anwers to all your questiosn that are not as terrible as you think!

but lots of people have been charged- and then proved innocent

Your friend's partner was not going to be employed by her as a result of the CRB check. The one tihng that has been made clear is that "spent" convcitions are now never spent

They will still show up on a CRB check - and the prospective "employer" may then choose not to take the "risk" of employing the person.

Alternaitvely, people will choose ntot o go through the process for fear that (for example) something that they did as a teenager will show up.

OK here's a dilemma (have namechanged BTW).

Like, I think, a lot of women, I have been on the receiving end of quite a few bits of inappropriate behaviour when I was young, mostly from strangers.

When I was a teenager, I was mildly touched up on a couple of occasions by a member of my extended family (not a blood relation.) I wasn't traumatised, just a little confused. I haven't seen him for 20 years now and hardly ever think about him.

I have never done anything about this. It's little to me - a sort of "shrug shoulders" thought.

I have never even dreamt about making an allegation about it. In any case I know it would come to nothing as it would just be my word against his.

Now this new legislation has come in, it has made me think, well whether something would come of it or not, ought I to make an allegation against him? So that it will go on his record so that he will be kept away from vulnerable people?

My personal view is that he was going through a difficult time and is probably not a danger. But I am not an expert.

Should I be thinking about this? Have I misunderstood the new rules?

Can anyone advise me?

Ah years gone by were fab weren't they?

When my Dad could kick me half dead and beat me with a vacuum cleaner becuase people didn't interfere in peoples lives

When my Dad was left without a meal for days on end becuase his Dad was able to use his money how he wishedeven if that meant drinking it all!

When my friends Mum ahd to take the LEA to court just to get a school alce for her child with Spina Bifida

When the local yobbo could take half the pay off each of the local women coming off the bus and the police were tooscared to interfere

But it's not just about people who have direct contact with children and vunerable people, but also those who have access to their records. So becuase my 6 part-time admin staff have access to the records of the children using our provision they all have to registered with the ISA, even though they work in different area of the building and have nothing at all to do with the children.

www.isa-gov.org.uk/PDF/283896_ISA_A4_FactSheetNo3.pdf

Even cleaners, caretakers and carpark attendants, etc working in hospitals, colleges, etc will have to registered Just how workable will this thing be?

You make a good point GreyArea. This idea of a trusting society has always been dnagerously naive.

All I can say Cory, is tough luck. There are costs to everything. Some people shoplift as a teenager and get caught, some don't. Some sleep around and don't get STD's, some sleep with one person and do.

Vulnerable people must be protected. End of.

lol Beth. You just reminded me of a teenage poem wot I wrote

Oh, how I wish I was a child
when smiles were trust
and love was blind
and knowing was a million miles away

pmsl

MrsEricBanaMT Wed 16-Sep-09 18:38:36 Add a message | Report post | Contact poster

"All I can say Cory, is tough luck. There are costs to everything. Some people shoplift as a teenager and get caught, some don't. Some sleep around and don't get STD's, some sleep with one person and do. "

You are wilfully misunderstanding my posts. I am NOT talking about guilty people who have been caught. I am talking about innocent people who have been charged by mistake and then found not guilty. Or are you naive enough to believe that this never happens?

It does happen and it could happen to any one of us. Tough luck?

My problem with the CRB system is that you will be treated as guilty if you have ever been charged, regardless of whether the charge was proved or not.

Even if it was found that you were miles from the scene at the time of the crime and cannot possibly have had anything to do with it (like that man who was charged "on expert evidece" for attacking his baby, when he was later shown to have been at an office party at the time).

There are costs to everything- what, to having a baby in the first place? The man had done nothing else wrong. But he was charged, and now that charge will stick.

It is the fact that being charged is equated with being guilty that I have a serious problem with.

You can protect yourself against being guilty of a crime. But you can never protect yourself against being wrongfully charged.

if you are charged with a crime and found not guilty, you are then aquitted. I don't get it. Other than in the cases of rapists who we all know a whoping 90% get off with it. That's a huge margin for error and the authorites would be right to do this

Urgh. CRB's.

I have an enhanced CRB clearance as I work with vulnerable adults. It initially took 12 weeks to process, even though I HAD an enhanced disclosure from the employer I had just left, they are stupidly not transferrable or apparently updateable.

They quibbled about my name - silly me marrying, divorcing then changing my name back to maiden name by change of name deed (which I submitted to my employer for my application along with everything else)

Too many names (2!) for the CRB loonies to deal with obviously. For 12 weeks they obviously sat on this and wondered how to go about checking so: They phoned me, asked me my current surname ("Blue") asked me my married name ("Pink") then asked me my maiden name ("errrr, Blue?")

"OK!" says the sing song voice "Your clearance will be dispatched and your employer will recieve it within 5 working days. Bye!" My employer recieved it the following morning.

WTF was the phonecall all about then? I wasnt even asked any security questions to check it was me?

Still in same company and job but CRB is due for renewal soon - Why oh Why do I have to give over all the SAME documents again? Nothing has changed! WHY is it not just updateable? Why does my company have to shell out another £35 for the same useless piece of paper?

I could have been abusing every service user I have been in contact with over the last 3 years since having these stupid checks but if I have not been caught, it wont show on any stupid system will it? So they just print me out another one for another 3 years for me to potentially continue abusing, WITH my new CRB clearance?????????????????

My head aches with it all.

I assist with reading, swimming and netball at my DC's school. I was asked for my birth certificate ONLY for the school to do a check - "Its only a matter of a phonecall" chirps the receptionist "go on into the classroom". I offered my enhanced CRB as further ID and back-up to which she declined "no, no, not necessary"

My question is - WHAT sort of minimal checks are given to school volunteers then? Why is it not enhanced and just requires minimal ID or information?

I can see no benefits of the CRB "system" except money making.