Britain Will Subject Everyone Who Works With Kids To Multiple, Repeated Police-checks

[Selling up]

I'm glad the mods left this thread all day on the main page... and delighted to read the broad consensus of comments here against the scheme. As you can tell, I feel very strongly about potentially being required to prove my safety to have "contact" with children and I'm glad that many of you feel the same.

If I do get asked to provide evidence of being safe around children, I'll report back.

[Ah-so]

There is nothing wrong with CRB checks in principle, but having to pay for them is discraceful - most people who want to work with children do so in a voluntary capacity and by and large in a very public environment.

I have been CRB checked twice - one as a literacy volunteer (reading with a child in a room full of other adults and children) and also as a school governor (turning up to meetings after work to discuss budgets etc). At no time did I have any 1-to-1 access to children. All this creates incredible and time consuming bureaucracy that protects no one and inconveniences all.

[Elizabeth]

Probably because the country has had more than enough of thieving lefties over the last sixty years.

Um, in case you haven't noticed, it's the left who are imposing this nonsense. After all, the left-wing ideology is based on a bloated centralised state which steals from the majority to hand to its favored special interest groups, so how can they possibly have any desire for personal freedom? The end result of going 'further and further to the right' is a free market and personal freedom, whereas the end result of going 'further and further to the left' is cannibalism and gulags.

All this left v right nonsense. Stalin was 'extreme left'. Granted. But His buddy Hitler (well his waring soul mate) was 'extreme right wing'.

Observing the minutae of behaviour is not allowed by the state. Its a totalitarian state, not a left wing state or a right wing state. They don't want your powers of observation to be too sharp, because if they are you might just pick what they are doing... as well as, I have got to say, the moment government jumps into bed with private industry to shaft consumers and citizens either through lax laws or redirection of taxes to business from individual citizens, it can hardly be called left wing.

Can we have some balance? Just simple risk management. Will this or will this not make a genuine contibute to the welfare of the people we are concerned about? How will it contribute? What are the things we are not controlling and would we be better to concentrate on those aspects? Are we giving ourselves a false sense of security by concentrating on a form?

The thing that drives me mad is that so many people are so heavily into making judgements (to feed egos I guess), but so few seem to have the capacity to make real judgements any more because they are so strung up by the book (eg. the volunteer coordinator who recognised that some guy was just being a bit creepy and close to the kids - but doesn't have the power to call it without having to then go into a ridiculous self justification and exploration of their motivations, and kids who are chastised for judging that they don't want to work with someone JUST because they didn't feel comfortable. At the moment they would probably be sent for 'tolerance training'. So instead people rely the stupid government classifications of tolerance for their private prejudice and at the same time rely on the state to give them a set of orders that allow them to 'not judge' 'by the book'.

[OnionTerror]

It will probably come to a point where potential step-parents will need to get a CRB check before they are allowed to marry their other halves.

As for that link, what exactly is the "Wizard Academy"?

[Warwick-Watcher]

There is nothing wrong with CRB checks in principle, but having to pay for them is discraceful - most people who want to work with children do so in a voluntary capacity and by and large in a very public environment.

I have been CRB checked twice - one as a literacy volunteer (reading with a child in a room full of other adults and children) and also as a school governor (turning up to meetings after work to discuss budgets etc). At no time did I have any 1-to-1 access to children. All this creates incredible and time consuming bureaucracy that protects no one and inconveniences all.

It strikes me that the whole checking process is the wrong way round.

Surely the government/police/courts have records on computer of all offences committed in Britain? If so then why shouldn't the school/church/whetever have the onus to check the criminal records of applicants for any paid or unpaid occupation?

After all it is the state that is worried (perhaps on behalf of Daily Express reading parents) about abusers working in the public arena.

I wonder why so many gays become clergy; for some of them is it so they can abuse young boys?

[Als]

Just came across this in the Independant:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...ng-1751552.html

People who suspect an individual of being unsuitable to work or volunteer with children will be able to refer them to the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) through a form on its website. After receiving an allegation from a member of the public, the ISA will examine the available evidence and contact the person concerned to allow them to mount a defence.

[Guest eight]

I have been CRB checked twice - one as a literacy volunteer (reading with a child in a room full of other adults and children) and also as a school governor (turning up to meetings after work to discuss budgets etc). At no time did I have any 1-to-1 access to children. All this creates incredible and time consuming bureaucracy that protects no one and inconveniences all.

It's a good contract for Capita here in Darlington though....

I remember reading something in one of Howard Jacobsen's columns, where he said something like - In my day, we didn't have to worry incase our PE teacher was a paedophile. Of course he was a paedophile, he was a PE teacher!

That kind of common sense approach is worth 10000 CRB checks, in my opinion.

eight

Edited July 20, 2009 by eight

[Wires 74]

Just came across this in the Independant:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...ng-1751552.html

That`s somewhat Stasi-like ...

[moneyscam]

That`s somewhat Stasi-like ...

Just another of the methodical and slowly / slowly steps towards a dystopian nightmare. The people are so dumbed down the state can even get dumbshits to grass each other up whether for something real or imagined. And as Stromba posted, all designed to further fragment society - drive a wedge between children and their family and friends so only the state can indoctrinate them in their schools.

[ChumpusRex]

It strikes me that the whole checking process is the wrong way round.

Surely the government/police/courts have records on computer of all offences committed in Britain? If so then why shouldn't the school/church/whetever have the onus to check the criminal records of applicants for any paid or unpaid occupation?

You're right - especially as you cannot request a CRB disclosure for yourself. Any application for a CRB disclosure must be sponsored by an appropriate institution (e.g. school, employer, etc.)

If you are applying for paid employment, then I would expect the employer to meet the cost of the CRB disclosure as part of the appointment process. However, the disclosure is expensive, and people doing volunteer work or working for employment agencies, where return on investment for the sponsor is less, they are permitted to pass the cost onto the applicant.

Of course, the government does keep records of all offences. However, under the Data Protection Act and Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, they are not permitted to disclose any offences that are considered 'spent', except in 'special' circumstances. Hence the reason for the CRB discloure, and the reason that all requests must be sponsored, as this is data that the police could not normally disclose.

This is the typical problem of over-government. You have one law that prohibits the police/courts from releasing data about criminals at such time that their offences could be regarded as irrelevant (i.e. minor offences where punishment is complete). Yet, at the same time you have another law, which permits that data to be disclosed, almost to all and sundry, except the person themselves.