DBS: Disqualification by association now SCRAPPED for schools

[bd67th]

DQ by association requirements now scrapped for schools, already.

Because no male teacher would ever dream of using coercive control to get his wife to take the rap for his child porn abuse images so that he could carry on teaching and having access to vulnerable children.

Never mind a bus, you could drive a cruise liner through that loophole. And it's already in effect. And where are the Press on this?

I am increasingly sure that there is a deliberate and very quiet removal of safeguarding across the board going on. The TRA/self-id aspect is just the most visible.

DQ = disqualification. I should have expanded that initialism in the link.

• [Message from MNHQ - we've edited the title now]

Just what David Challenor wanted, eh?

God, it's really depressing.

This was raised in the Scouts/David Challenor thread:

It is bizarre because it is only very recently (and I mean within last few months) that some occupations no longer lose their jobs through the wrongdoing of a family member or resident in the same home: disqualification through association.

July 2018 – The Department of Education published its response, (amending the childcare disqualification arrangements in schools and non-domestic registered settings pdf), to the consultation that it announced in May 2016. It agreed disqualification by association in schools and registered non-domestic childcare settings should be removed. Therefore, from the 1st September 2018 schools are no longer required to ask their staff questions about unspent relevant convictions of someone living in their household. We will be publishing an updated information page when the new regulation is enacted on the 1st September 2018.

One of the organisations on a case that highlights the case for removing the disqualification by association: Unlock comment: Government announces scrapping of ‘disqualification by association’ in schools

Good spot. We need to start calling for a review of current safeguarding practice and recent changes to safeguarding practice in the light of evidence for ballooning incidence of sexual harassment and assault of girls and women in schools and other public institutions.

Safeguarding in Schools comment: Disqualification by association: September 2018

There was an interesting case, Pendleton v. Derbyshire County Council that went to a tribunal because the wife in question was a teacher married to the offending Headteacher. She argued that she was the victim of indirect religious discrimination for losing her job because she refused to dissolve the marriage/household.

www.lawandreligionuk.com/2016/05/18/unfair-dismissal-guilt-by-association-and-the-marriage-vow-pendleton-v-derbyshire-cc/

Who lobbied for this? I am absolutely sick of these civil liberties/human rights/SJW wankers campaigning to remove safeguards. Anybody wanting to dilute safeguarding needs to be viewed with the utmost suspicion. This is going to be added to my next email to my MP.

I am increasingly sure that there is a deliberate and very quiet removal of safeguarding across the board going on. The TRA/self-id aspect is just the most visible.

There is a long and important thread which details the many filings / potential failures of Safeguarding frameworks:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3301266-Safeguarding-girls-and-protecting-women-post-Jimmy-Saville-metoo

Terrifyingly, it seems it needs adding to every week.

Those spouses who stay living with abusive men ought to be disqualified by association.
Not because they need to be doubly punished for someone else's crimes.
Not because we don't recognise what coercive control is.
But because to place their personal desire to have a job with access to children over the need to safeguard children is the wrong choice.

And if you are a decent individual, choosing to live with a paedophile (hard to square that, but let's suspend disbelief) you would willingly sacrifice some of your own personal options in service to a more important cause, that of child safety.

People make choices all the time that preclude certain careers. Choosing to share a household with a convicted sex criminal is a choice that comes with the exclusion of certain careers.

I despair of the self-centredness that would have some people throwing caution to the wind for hundreds of children because mememe.

People who work in the finance industry have their personal finances scrutinised regularly to check they’re still fit to practice, including the finances of their spouse/partner, adult children living with them. WTF as a society do we care more about property crimes than crimes against the vulnerable don’t answer that I feel sick enough as it is

Makes me wonder what they'll do next...this rabbit hole is bottomless.

Who has scrapped this and why?

My DH works in the finance industry. A while ago, we were considering fostering children. A friend who is an experienced foster parent advised us against it because we are so regularly scrutinised for DH's job.

The friend said it's not unusual for placed children who have had traumatic experiences to lodge complaints and it takes a long time to investigate. In the interim, it would, of course, show up in the scrutiny - and the fact it had been raised would remain there after it was cleared.

I'm very conflicted. In our case, the expedient course of action was not to put ourselves forward as foster parents. I'm not sure that, overall, this is a win.

Who has scrapped this and why?

The pdf linked above offers some explanation along with other links - like the Unlock comment. And there's some intersection with other human/civil rights legislation.

It's very messy.

100% Barracker. We need to be able to have people face the consequences of their choices, and help them out if it it they wish to leave, not enable their own poor judgement out of naive sympathy.

How come the world is full of these absurdly niave 'rescuers' nowadays? They are the perfect allies for those who deliberately pursue paths that harm. Mass suicide.

Barracker spot on

Those spouses who stay living with abusive men ought to be disqualified by association.Not because they need to be doubly punished for someone else's crimes.Not because we don't recognise what coercive control is. But because to place their personal desire to have a job with access to children over the need to safeguard children is the wrong choice.

People make choices all the time that preclude certain careers. Choosing to share a household with a convicted sex criminal is a choice that comes with the exclusion of certain careers.

Who the hell made this decision and thinks the minor inconvenience of certain adults is a bigger injustice than the risk to children from child rapists.

I note that only three of the groups responding to that consultation represented children. Another two represented ex-offenders and most of the rest represented childcare service providers (using "childcare" in the broad sense of "anyone who is caring for a child, whether or not they also educate that child) or childcare workers (via unions and trade associations).

82% of respondents were schools, academies, nurseries, local authorities, or trade unions representing childcare workers. I suspect that the 18% "other and individual" responses will have a strong overlap with the 18% of responses that didn't consider disqualification by association to be unfair.

Remind me again who the principal stakeholders in safeguarding are? Lisa Muggeridge said it is children.

I thought this guidance was introduced after Huntley because his wife was a TA and the girls had partly felt safe going into his house because of this? And also his position in the attached secondary school. Is that right?

So what changed?

And flowers, acres of beautiful flowers, for Holly and Jessica who I am thinking about right now.

CRC (criminal record checks) came in after the murders of Holly & Jessica.

It was realised that police forces information & intelligence needed to be collated centrally. Although Huntley hadn't been convicted there were a number of similar allegations and he had been interviewed by police in different areas.

CRC changed to DBS.
www.gov.uk/criminal-record-checks-apply-role

Used to be CRB too no?

Huntley should never have been working at a school in the first place. But some right on fuckwit destroyed/didn’t pass on information about him because they were concerned about his rights under the data protection act. But don’t worry lessons have been learnt and that won’t happen again

flowers, acres of beautiful flowers, for Holly and Jessica

Yes

Yes sorry CRC's from the CRB !

Holy crap. How are changes like this just being quietly pushed through? We know safeguarding is there for a reason? Who is benefiting from removing safeguards? Why does anyone want to give them what they want? it’s very dangerous for children and vulnerable people.

Especially at primary school level. We know do many of our TAs especially - see them around, walk past their houses, pet their dogs. We trust them. The thought that one of them could - in the future - be living with a convicted sex offernder chills me.

Does anyone know - are individual schools able to still insist that new staff confirm that they don't live with offenders?