General Chat

It means , Bob, yes, you shouldnt be there without a CRB check.

Lets not forget all all the other people CTB checks cover - Drs, Nurses and those that work with the elderly & the vunerable. They have to have it too.

I think the time is soon coming that we'll all have to have ( & provide at request) a card like a driving licence, identifing ourselves and showing criminal convictions- it would help speed up the long process that obtaining a CRB check involves.



Maybe some wouldn't like it - but t would also maybe cut crime, and focus the mind of petty criminals.
If you have nothing to hide it shouldn' bother you

I belong to a club that "MAY" have youngsters joining up.....
although I am not a qualified coach, or trainer, or CRB checked.
would that have meant that I should avoid ANY contact with a new recruit?
after all, we need youngsters to get involved........and IF they joined we would hope that they would be permanent.....and meetings are at least twice a week?
would that also mean that I could become a virtual leper, in the club to which I have belonged since 1987?
Bob

PERHAPS THERE SHOULD BE A SORT OF DRIVING LICENCE
RENEWABLE EVERY YEAR

You also need to bear in mind that unless someone has a conviction they will not show on the list anyway.

A clear CRB check is not a reference, and it does not show that the person is not an offender just that they have never been convicted.

It's fundamentally a nonsense system as plenty of people think that someone with a clear CRB is OK to be with children, whereas - as we've found over the years that is not the case.

Jill

I don’t think it’s necessary for occasional or one off visitors to be checked ****as long as they are supervised by a member of staff or someone who has CRB validation.****
In this category, I’d include people who give talks such as Firemen, Police, British Rail safety officers or Authors’.

For music teachers who travel around various schools and are alone with the students, I’d suggest the LEA is responsible with a blanket CRB for them to cover the schools in the area which they attend. The last I heard was that the music teacher (and others) would have had to have a separate CRB check for each named school.

How do the original proposals cover the yearly photographer team, or travelling theatre group? If each employee had to have a separate CRB check for each school, it smacks of a gravy train, not protection for the students.


edit - SheilaWestWilts does have a point. Perhaps the 'blanket' LEA coverage I've suggested should be renewed every 12 or 18 months?

However many checks there are on however many people, they will still not 'catch' everyone. A criminal always has to offend the first time. I tend to agree with Mildred on this. Wasn't there something in the news a while ago that authors etc. who go and give talks in schools, were to be subject to CRB checks. That seems ridiculous to me.

The problem with the checks is that, unless someone has previously been charged with an offence against children, they won't be on the list, and they deem everyone guilty!
As Jill said, one check doesn't cover all, someone's making a packet out of this, and with lots of different lists, instead of one central one, the checks are expensive, but worthless pieces of paper.

Don't forget, the obscene Nursery worker in Devon had had all the checks,
The only way to make sure our children are safe is to be vigilant ourselves.

There was an idea - a year or two ago now? - where the "list" would contain the offenders and everyone else would be deemed to be OK. That makes perfect sense to me. It would make for a quicker checking system, the "list" would be relatively short, and it would therefore be cheaper to administer.

I've no idea why we carry on with the current system. I am CRB checked for work and again for being a school governor. Mad to have both - and expensive. Even though I don't pay the costs involved someone somewhere is making twice the amount they need to make.

I expect there are whole teams of people who administer the current system and frankly, it's money for old rope if they check people several times for the different aspects of their job, hobbies etc.

Jill

I'm all for the checks for people working with kids on a regular basis. I myself have been police checked for my job. The safety of the child is paramount.

However I don't think a parent helper, who comes into the school several times a month to help out should be police checked (& have to pay the fee themselves). A parent helper normally doesn't work with the kids alone in a room. And is always supervised.

I go in as a PH as well as working paid. But then I am staff, police checked et all, so they can leave me to supervise the kids in the reception playground knowing its what I do for the school anyhow LOL !

I disagree, no measures taken to protect our children should be discarded.

What difference does it make how often someone works with the children?

Smacks of cost-cutting to me:(

BBC NEWS
School vetting rules to be eased

Rules requiring about 11 million people working with children to register with a new agency and have criminal records checks are to be watered down.

Schools Secretary Ed Balls has accepted recommendations of a review he ordered into the vetting and barring scheme for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The checks will now involve only those working with the same children once a week, not once a month, for example.

It is thought the new rules will apply to about two million fewer people.

The checks, intended to protect children, had caused concern among teachers and parents.

A source at the Department for Children, Schools and Families said the original plans had had "unintended consequences" and the changes would protect children without being too burdensome or bureaucratic.