People with convictions for abusing children end up working with children due to poor vetting procedures.
“Something should be done!” thunder the papers.
Government does something.
“How dare the State do something! What about our precious liberties?!” thunder the papers.
If any Conservative-minded people are going to pop-up here and start the usual “you lefties hate the mail because you don’t like what it represents” spiel then reflect on the above. THAT is why people like me not only dislike but don’t respect the Mail and the other tabloid chip-wrappers. They don’t have the intellectual honesty or personal responsibility to take a position and stick to it, they’re shameless opportunists.
Being left permanantly unemployable due to unsubstantiated allegations would hardly be a slight inconvenience though. The allegations against Huntley turned out to be true but that will not always be the case. This seriously undermines the right to a fair trial.
This wouldn’t have made a difference to Soham anyway, as Huntley gained access to his victims via Carr who was a teaching assistant giving home lessons. His job as caretaker was incidental. To prevent that, we’d have to ban people from work whose partners, families, or friends had had allegations made, i.e. completely shut down society.
I work in Outreach for a university, and all staff visiting schools need a CRB check, as do many other people dealing with potentially vulnerable individuals; care workers for the elderly and taxi drivers, for example.
The form takes a negligible amount of time to fill out and only those with records that should preclude them from unsupervised contact with children would be affected. Let’s face it, it’s hardly unknown for some sick parents to use their own kids to gain access to other people’s (I believe there was a story about this a few months ago in the news), so this initiative makes sense
ALLEGATIONS shouldn’t be taken into account, only convictions. Otherwise we’re undermined the fundamental principle of British justice – innocent until proven guilty.
Huntley applied for a job in a school, and should have been thoroughly checked in his own right. The police fucked up.
But Huntley was never convicted of any offence before Soham, so I don’t see how those two statements are consistent.
The moral panic following Soham led to any allegation now being taken into account, even though this would have made no difference as his job at the school was incidental to the murders.
So, a parent who doesn’t want to be on the database because of an intrusive state will now have to risk complying or being labeled a paedophile. How long before the general public will have to have clearance, you know, you might just bump into an under 18 in the tinned veg aisle so carrying evidence that you are safe may become compulsory. They could put a few more pieces of information on it too, such as medical record, other criminal records, identification and call it an ID card.
Stevie H – I agree that allegations shouldn’t be taken into account but they are. For example, any allegations made against teachers (even if they are later proved to be false) remain on that teacher’s record, making them virtually unemployable in the future. I agree that all adults who come into unsupervised contact with children in a professional capacity should have a CRB check, and I imagine this is common practice for most schools etc but its not a fail-safe solution. If anything, it may well exacerbate a situation that already exists in the teaching community, where malicious allegations can be made with the full knowledge that they will have a continuing impact even after being proven false.
The proposals don’t affect parents unless they also happen to work or volunteer for an organisation that works with children. That’s nowhere near ‘1 in 4 britons’. The wild stories that parents will need to be vetted to give lifts etc. are complete hokum.
CRB checks are common already in the voluntary sector.. it’s not a major change. I hope they actually streamline it – currently you need a CRB check for each organisation you work with (and a different one for night/day). I know of people with 15 CRB checks!
It’s just a bureaucratic money train (and a slow one at that – one headmaster I know actually had to start work a month late because his CRB was delayed for no reason, and although he’d been headmaster for 10 years he couldn’t work until the paperwork came through). If these new proposals centralise the system so it’s 1 check for 1 person not 1 check for 1 organisation it’ll be a welcome change.
Tom (iow): Huntley had a conviction for riding a motorcycle without a licence or insurance, whether this would have precluded him from the caretaker’s job I’m not sure, the media shitstorm around this story has blurred the facts so much.
I teach people to dive in a local scuba club. I suspect we will need to abandon teaching teenagers. We don’t have many at present, kids of members, but no-one will be prepared to pay £65 just so we can take kids and show them what fun the hobby is.
Does it end there? The instructor should pay their £65, but what about lifeguards? Dive buddies on trips?
Massive nanny state over-reaction. As already stated Huntley would have breezed through this, the vetting required for working in a school would already cover him.
If you’re being paid for that then £65 isn’t a lot – and you already presumably have your annual CRB check anyway (as will lifeguards etc.) as it’s a legal requirement for such jobs.
If you’re voluntary then it’s free anyway. If youre working with children then the parents have a right to be sure you’ve been cleared for that.
We don’t want to watch 3 months of ‘niceness’ in the house. I hope they ‘cast’ a few nutters as well for the final series!
I actually think this is a genuine case of the Nanny state for once.
Mark:
except which newspapers would run the headline:
“Labour fails our children -
paedophile parent allowed to help with children’s play sessions”
??
They have made their mind up without reading the proposals.
People with convictions for abusing children end up working with children due to poor vetting procedures.
“Something should be done!” thunder the papers.
Government does something.
“How dare the State do something! What about our precious liberties?!” thunder the papers.
If any Conservative-minded people are going to pop-up here and start the usual “you lefties hate the mail because you don’t like what it represents” spiel then reflect on the above. THAT is why people like me not only dislike but don’t respect the Mail and the other tabloid chip-wrappers. They don’t have the intellectual honesty or personal responsibility to take a position and stick to it, they’re shameless opportunists.
@ Matty : excellent post, a very well made point.
To all those who complain about the checks I ask this:
How many people would need to be slightly inconvenienced, to offset the rape and murder of a child?
Being left permanantly unemployable due to unsubstantiated allegations would hardly be a slight inconvenience though. The allegations against Huntley turned out to be true but that will not always be the case. This seriously undermines the right to a fair trial.
This wouldn’t have made a difference to Soham anyway, as Huntley gained access to his victims via Carr who was a teaching assistant giving home lessons. His job as caretaker was incidental. To prevent that, we’d have to ban people from work whose partners, families, or friends had had allegations made, i.e. completely shut down society.
Agreed with Matty
I work in Outreach for a university, and all staff visiting schools need a CRB check, as do many other people dealing with potentially vulnerable individuals; care workers for the elderly and taxi drivers, for example.
The form takes a negligible amount of time to fill out and only those with records that should preclude them from unsupervised contact with children would be affected. Let’s face it, it’s hardly unknown for some sick parents to use their own kids to gain access to other people’s (I believe there was a story about this a few months ago in the news), so this initiative makes sense
ALLEGATIONS shouldn’t be taken into account, only convictions. Otherwise we’re undermined the fundamental principle of British justice – innocent until proven guilty.
Huntley applied for a job in a school, and should have been thoroughly checked in his own right. The police fucked up.
But Huntley was never convicted of any offence before Soham, so I don’t see how those two statements are consistent.
The moral panic following Soham led to any allegation now being taken into account, even though this would have made no difference as his job at the school was incidental to the murders.
So, a parent who doesn’t want to be on the database because of an intrusive state will now have to risk complying or being labeled a paedophile. How long before the general public will have to have clearance, you know, you might just bump into an under 18 in the tinned veg aisle so carrying evidence that you are safe may become compulsory. They could put a few more pieces of information on it too, such as medical record, other criminal records, identification and call it an ID card.
Stevie H – I agree that allegations shouldn’t be taken into account but they are. For example, any allegations made against teachers (even if they are later proved to be false) remain on that teacher’s record, making them virtually unemployable in the future. I agree that all adults who come into unsupervised contact with children in a professional capacity should have a CRB check, and I imagine this is common practice for most schools etc but its not a fail-safe solution. If anything, it may well exacerbate a situation that already exists in the teaching community, where malicious allegations can be made with the full knowledge that they will have a continuing impact even after being proven false.
The proposals don’t affect parents unless they also happen to work or volunteer for an organisation that works with children. That’s nowhere near ‘1 in 4 britons’. The wild stories that parents will need to be vetted to give lifts etc. are complete hokum.
CRB checks are common already in the voluntary sector.. it’s not a major change. I hope they actually streamline it – currently you need a CRB check for each organisation you work with (and a different one for night/day). I know of people with 15 CRB checks!
It’s just a bureaucratic money train (and a slow one at that – one headmaster I know actually had to start work a month late because his CRB was delayed for no reason, and although he’d been headmaster for 10 years he couldn’t work until the paperwork came through). If these new proposals centralise the system so it’s 1 check for 1 person not 1 check for 1 organisation it’ll be a welcome change.
Agree with Nina and Tony.
Tom (iow): Huntley had a conviction for riding a motorcycle without a licence or insurance, whether this would have precluded him from the caretaker’s job I’m not sure, the media shitstorm around this story has blurred the facts so much.
I teach people to dive in a local scuba club. I suspect we will need to abandon teaching teenagers. We don’t have many at present, kids of members, but no-one will be prepared to pay £65 just so we can take kids and show them what fun the hobby is.
Does it end there? The instructor should pay their £65, but what about lifeguards? Dive buddies on trips?
Massive nanny state over-reaction. As already stated Huntley would have breezed through this, the vetting required for working in a school would already cover him.
If you’re being paid for that then £65 isn’t a lot – and you already presumably have your annual CRB check anyway (as will lifeguards etc.) as it’s a legal requirement for such jobs.
If you’re voluntary then it’s free anyway. If youre working with children then the parents have a right to be sure you’ve been cleared for that.