Guilty until proven Guilty

Im checked often, due to the nature of my job, and as others have said it flags up any criminal activity you may have had.

Although mine is clear, if a colleague had a past history, ie shoplifting, drink driving or theft it is up to the employer to use their discretion. So a person who had a "mistake " in their past, may still be able to work in their chosen enviroment. I also have to be POVA checked (Protection of vulnerable Adults) i often wonder what they will bring out next - but better safe than sorry

 

Its not so much the CRB (ie Criminal Records Bureau) check that is an issue. I can't see how anyone would have a problem with a CRB check (unless of course they are guilty of something). To have a criminal record, you have to have been found guilty of a crime, either you've admitted it and been cautioned (in the case of a minor offence) or you've been tried in court and had chance to have your say, present evidence etc. If you get accused of a crime, go to court, and are found not guilty, then you don't have a criminal record.

The new proposal doesn't work like that. In effect you are judged in your absence whether you've been accused of a crime or not. Someone who knows nothing about you sits in an office and pulls up records from social services, the CRB, and elsewhere, they they decide, without any sort of trial.

Of course there is a piece of law that can help to safeguard people from misinterpretations of records, unfounded allegations etc. The Data Protection Act. It allows us all to see data that is held about us by a given organisation, on payment of a fee of £10. If that data is inaccurate then under the act you can have it corrected or deleted. Sounds great yes? Now here's the downside. That same law gives the organisation that holds the data 40 days to disclose it to you, then you have something like 28 days to request an amendment, then they have some other period of time to either correct the data or write and tell you why they won't. Then you can apply to the court for an order to have the data corrected. In short, it could take months or years to get the data put right. And that's just for one organisation. The new checkup, which is NOT the CRB check, involves data held by several organisations, so if your report is wrong, you'd have to write to them all, pay them all £10 each, potentially apply for court orders against all of them etc. In other words it would be impractical to sort it out if the checkup ruled against you due to a misinterpretation of data, or erroneous data.

A CRB check involves filling in a form and sending it off with some fee. Then you get a report back summarising your criminal record if you have one, or all clear if you don't. It differs from the new checkup in that it is based on proven fact where you had a chance to defend yourself, as opposed to interpretations of second hand data, where you get no chance to defend yourself if something is not right.

 

Just on a side note, most abuse of children, be it sexual, physical or pyschological is done by the parents or by someone who is well known to the child. The shadowy paedophile, lurking in the bushes waiting to abduct your child, is largely an invention of the media, but is still used to scaremonger.

 

I think sometimes the journalists that write the news (not the presenters) should be locked up in jail. I believe that in some cases they actually cost people their lives (literally), but that's another subject.

 

The new scenario is alot different froma CRB - as said above, to be on the CRB - you have to be a convicted criminal, found guilty through evidence in court of a crime. When you apply for a job that is with children or the vulnerable, a CRB check is run on you. Any convictions are provided to the employer - and it's up to their discretion whether or not you get your job. In some jobs, a financial background check is also necessary - I had to have one done when working for the police - as it showed good character, whereas if someone had heavy debtload, lots of defaults etc., it could make them an easy target for bribery or corruption - so likely wouldn't get the job. If on the CRB you have a record of things like assault, harassment, racial hatred - well, you can bet you wouldn't be found working with children or the elderly - as obviously you have a problem dealing with issues in a proper adult manner. Speaking as a parent - I'm all for that. What I'm not all for though - is a panel of people passing judgement on someone without proper evidence and trial of anything that they are believed to have done.
I'm strict on my kids - and if they require a swat on the bum to get their attention when not listening and possibly going to injure themselves or someone else - they're going to get it. Would I do that to another's child? Not a chance. However, someone who doesn't know me might say that is out of order (and it had better not be a non parent who would say it, 'cos what the hell would they know?) - but.......do you sit there and go 'oh please little johnny, don't do that, oh don't do that, you're going to hurt little Lisa,,,,,,Johnny, I asked you not to do that' in the whiney tone I hear so many mothers using? Or......a quick sharp action that stops it in it's tracks, let's you talk to the child, and more importantly protects the safety of your own child and little Lisa from getting hurt? hmmmm So, while my kids have never been in any trouble, know how to behave with others, have never been guilty of disrupting their classes, or purposely injuring another person - and they have never been abused themselves - if another individual didn't agree with that - I'd be written off from helping out in a volunteer or employment capacity with children or the vulnerable?????? Well, that'd be fine with me, as I wouldn't fancy using my valuable free time to volunteer for others ill behaved offspring while their mum sits and moans at them whilst they get away with doing the naughty.
Maybe a better way of determining who should be able to help out in these types of things is to look at their children......
Have no problem with CRB checks, I'd get a clean one any day. Both my husband I need them for our jobs.
Now where's the protection for decent people and compensation for false accusations being made about them? Maybe there should be character checks of anybody needing those employed in this manner!

 

Had a bit of a scout round to check up on what's actually being assessed to check i understand, seems ok to me, seems sensible in fact, its not making judgements on people without factual info at all....

there will be a constant list of people unable to work with children or vunerable adults because of criminal record checks (currently this is 3 different lists so people can fall through the gaps)
if you have been questioned by the police in relation to an alleged crime you will be banned until it is resolved or have to be with another responsible adult (approved already) depending on the crime
If for any reason you disagree with being on a list you can appeal (unless you have been convicted of a crime)
If social services have removed children from you because of 'harm' you can be on the list
the main panel seem to be judging if you go on both (children and vunerable adults) lists or just 1, nothing else

I may have misunderstood, but that all sounds pretty sane to me!

 

If you're right, then it sounds fair enough. Although that being the case, I must now go and beat myself with a halibut for drawing the wrong conclusion based on a report from a single source (the BBC). I wouldn't care but I take great pleasure in criticising people who jump to conclusions without gathering all the facts first, and it seems I may have done just that:(

 

MzTrouble - that makes alot more sense - still haven't been able to get onto the right link - will have to google it tonight. However, I shall continue to always use 'mother's instinct'.....as there are always the ones who haven't been caught yet!

 

Will a little trout do Clueless?

 

I think that the 'main thing' is that children are protected. The safety of children is not really a laughing matter is it?

 

I do understand that false conclusions can quickly be drawn. However, as with all "disclosure" procedures there is a risk that people who genuinely have turned over a new leaf will be overlooked for someone who hasn't had to-someone who has understood from the very beginning that their actions have consequences.


Well, to be completely honest, I have to say a great big "Tough! You don't get to prove you are okay now on my kids I'm afraid-go ask someone else to risk their kids-I will do everything in my power ( and I mean everything) I can to keep you far, far away from mine".



And Clueless, there is nothing wrong with knee jerk reactions, they are a necessary part of our shared human, genetic make-up, despite being so-called civilised people ( what a laugh), we are merely animals and subject to animal instinct.


My Mother's-instinct says zero-tolerance around children.

 

I totally agree with you Lollipop. My mothers instinct says the same and I would do my own checking as far as possible. Clildren are precious [mine are grown but I would still fight for them to be safe]

Personally I would like to think I am good to my children and other children. That's not "selfish" that's being a caring individual.
I have worked around children at the school and I wouldn't mind any checks that I needed to have done.
Unfortunately we had a case of a respected teacher at the school who was committing crimes against the children. He was very pausible and respected as a lot who commit crimes against children are. It is up to us all to look out for our children.

 

Look on the bright side...it's taken 7 years for the muppets in power to come to the conclusion that this may or may not be needed...by next year we'll probably have a new government who may scrap the idea. The Tories have already told the companies angling for the ID Card registration work not to get too excited about putting in tender as they'll be scrapping the idea.

 

If only we lived in a democracy where the views of the majority counted.

 

I've been pondering this a bit more. MzTrouble's clarification of the situation is useful, and makes it sound ok. However if we are talking about checks to protect our kids from potential harm, why stop at background checks about crimes that may directly involve kids?

If someone else was driving my son somewhere, I'd want to be sure they were fit to drive. If they are a taxi driver, bus driver etc then fair enough. They have to have a PSV license which has to be renewed periodically, with periodic re-testing. But if the driver is driving in a private capacity, such as for a private club, then an ordinary driving license will suffice. What if that driver has just got his license back after a ban for drink driving? What if he/she only just scraped through their test some 40 years ago when the test was easier, and when their eyesight was much better than it is now? I'd also want to know about the condition of the vehicle being used. For private vehicles the MOT is the only mandatory roadworthiness test, and to be honest an MOT certificate is not worth the paper it is written on. A real wreck can get an MOT as long as its tyres aren't bald and bits aren't physically hanging off. My first car went through two MOTs in the time I owned it, yet it was a death trap. If I'd still had it when my wife fell pregnant I'd have sold it or scrapped it, despite its MOT.

I'd also want to know about the health of the person caring for my son. My step dad is a good man, but I wouldn't let him look after my son if he was on his own. Why? He's got arthritis in various joints, affecting his ability to grip and hold things safely, he's had three major heart attacks and continues to smoke, drink and won't eat decent food. To be honest if I let him look after my son, it would be on the back of my mind that he could pick him up and then drop him (if his arthritis got the better of him as it sometimes does), or worse, I'd be worried he could drop dead thus leaving my son to fend for himself.

There's lots of things we need to know when considering the welfare of our kids. Its just a question of how much can we check up on.