School Closures

[Give it to Ron]

why do you have to have more than one at any time..?

 

Because they only relate to the thing you apply for such as school governor - if you then work for a different football team you have to apply again they are not transferrable.

Its all done by the same company at the other end.....

 

Its all ****** though as proved recently when the FA insist you have them and then the President of an FA gets arrested for child abuse over a number of years in a different sport!!!

[Thedelldays]

Because they only relate to the thing you apply for such as school governor - if you then work for a different football team you have to apply again they are not transferrable.

Its all done by the same company at the other end.....

why dont they give you a tick in the box for everything...or give you a list of what fields you cant do and the rest being fine..?

 

am I missing something here..?

[View From The Top]

Criminal Records Bureau check for any history of criminal records. You have to have one if you are going to be a governor, teacher or even if you are going to help coach kids at sport. Costs a £10.....means bugger all really.

 

You need one for every thing you do - I have had to have 2 one for the football team I coach and one for the school where I also help coach.

 

No it doesn't.

 

A full enhanced disclosure, with the new safeguarding searches, cost £80 odd I believe.

 

Without the safeguarding (not everyone requires it) it's around £35.

 

The enhanced also covers List 99 and the like and is the standard for teachers/college tutors.

 

A also have two, for the same job!

[Give it to Ron]

why dont they give you a tick in the box for everything...or give you a list of what fields you cant do and the rest being fine..?

 

am I missing something here..?

 

Because then the company appointed to oversee it wouldn't make a nice big fat profit to hand on would they.

£10 a time...for ticking boxes and sending back a form.

[Thedelldays]

Because then the company appointed to oversee it wouldn't make a nice big fat profit to hand on would they.

£10 a time...for ticking boxes and sending back a form.

ah...

 

the new labour legacy...

[Give it to Ron]

No it doesn't.

 

A full enhanced disclosure, with the new safeguarding searches, cost £80 odd I believe.

 

Without the safeguarding (not everyone requires it) it's around £35.

 

The enhanced also covers List 99 and the like and is the standard for teachers/college tutors.

 

A also have two, for the same job!

 

Actually I am wrong the last one was £12 in October when I had to renew my expired one as they last 3 years for FA Level .

[View From The Top]

why dont they give you a tick in the box for everything...or give you a list of what fields you cant do and the rest being fine..?

 

am I missing something here..?

 

TDD, we've been arguing for yonks that they should be transferable.

 

I have two for the same job, as my time is split between college based and community based.

[sotonjoe]

why do you have to have more than one at any time..?

 

You don't have to have more than one as a rule. The duplication comes when you conduct new activities which require a CRB check. You then need to get a new one in case you've been convicted of anything since having the last onedone. It's just a piece of paper showing your criminal record status at the time the check was done. They're not 'live' documents which are automatically updated.

 

It's pretty archaic.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Criminal Records Bureau check for any history of criminal records. You have to have one if you are going to be a governor, teacher or even if you are going to help coach kids at sport. Costs a £10.....means bugger all really.

 

You need one for every thing you do - I have had to have 2 one for the football team I coach and one for the school where I also help coach.

 

Right, doesn't cost a tenner for starters, more like £70-80.

 

Yeah, stopping people who shouldn't be working with children is a stupid idea isn't it?! Lets let any old so and so work with them, people who work with children have never abused them before I think...

Edited 10 January, 2010 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[Thedelldays]

so, we are suspecting everyone then..?

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

so, we are suspecting everyone then..?

 

I would rather everyone was checked and not one child was abused, rather than not check anyone and have just one child abused.

 

Honestly, for someone who is so obviously right wing, your stance on this baffles me.

[Ponty]

As long as someone's never been caught it won't stop them getting the job.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

As long as someone's never been caught it won't stop them getting the job.

 

Yes, but you're saying that you would allow anyone to work with children no matter who they were?

[Thedelldays]

I would rather everyone was checked and not one child was abused, rather than not check anyone and have just one child abused.

 

Honestly, for someone who is so obviously right wing, your stance on this baffles me.

why am I "so right wing"...

 

I just dont buy into the UAF/Climate change/save the dolphins ideology...

 

for the (im just guessing here) massively low percentage of people that touch kids, everyone has to be checked..?

 

do they record your details and keep tabs on what you are doing when you submit your form...?

 

yet, if they wanted to take your DNA "just in case you might have committed a crime" you would say no...right..?

[View From The Top]

so, we are suspecting everyone then..?

 

The Safeguarding Authority bit was brought in after Huntley killed those kids, a key recommendation of the report and it does *look* as if everyone is under suspicion.

 

The CRB bit has been around for quite a while.

[Whitey Grandad]

WG has read it, and the new OFSTED safeguarding criteria.

 

He's an expert.

Both statements are correct, but the second does not relate to the first

[sotonjoe]

so, we are suspecting everyone then..?

 

 

DD .. are you having a laugh with that comment!?!?!?!

 

Yes ... it's a fair requirement that all people working with young people have to prove they have not been convicted of anything dubious. How on earth could that be wrong?!?!?!

 

What alternative would you suggest? Just seeing if job applicants look like paedophiles?

[View From The Top]

 

for the (im just guessing here) massively low percentage of people that touch kids, everyone has to be checked..?

 

 

 

Yes, check everyone, it's no big deal and if it keeps kids safe there should be no problem.

 

It shows that you don't work with kids or have kids.

 

You don't take risks with the safety of kids.

[Thedelldays]

sotonjoe

 

it is a good thing I guess...just had no idea it existed...

[sotonjoe]

sotonjoe

 

it is a good thing I guess...just had no idea it existed...

 

lol

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

why am I "so right wing"...

 

I just dont buy into the UAF/Climate change/save the dolphins ideology...

 

for the (im just guessing here) massively low percentage of people that touch kids, everyone has to be checked..?

 

do they record your details and keep tabs on what you are doing when you submit your form...?

 

yet, if they wanted to take your DNA "just in case you might have committed a crime" you would say no...right..?

 

There is a difference.

 

I work with a, what are technically classed as, 'vulnerable' group of people. There need to be checks on people who work with these groups, be that children, the mentally ill or the elderly if the system is to work properly and these people are to be protected.

 

The DNA database would store EVERYONES details, regardless of who they worked with/what they had done etc etc, that is immoral and irresponsible.

[Thedelldays]

 

The DNA database would store EVERYONES details, regardless of who they worked with/what they had done etc etc, that is immoral and irresponsible.

what IF, they wanted to take your DNA to work with these vulnerable people...just incase some was collected at a sex crime scene in the past but you were never caught..?

 

if we are being careful with these vulnerable people..better to do it properly and not take any chances..?

[Give it to Ron]

Right, doesn't cost a tenner for starters, more like £70-80.

 

Yeah, stopping people who shouldn't be working with children is a stupid idea isn't it?! Lets let any old so and so work with them, people who work with children have never abused them before I think...

 

Why dont you read what I wrote FFS!!! It cost me £12 to renew ny FA Dislosure CRB thats a fact!!!

I took my FA coaching badge 3 years ago,CRB is part of that and expires after 3 years - you get sent a renewal and have to complet an online course...it costs £12 then you get sent your renewal certificate. This enables me to coach kids!!!

Tell me how having a certificate stops that? Read what I wrote about the FA president...who is policing the police?

 

I am fully aware of the cost of Disclosures but that is nothing to do with renewals of CRB!!!

[Whitey Grandad]

what is a CRB and why do you have to have one..?

I've just got mine out and had a look at it (no, behave!). It includes:

 

Position applied for: FOOTBALL REFEREE - CHILDRENS

Name of employer - HAMPSHIRE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION

 

I still need to the the Child Protection course before I can get back to refereeing, even though I only do adults' games. The argument given is that there might be a player who is under 18, yet the other 21 players don't need a CRB :confused: It's another reason why you can't get the refs today, not that they are all paedophiles, just that it's another obstacle to overcome.

[Ponty]

Yes, but you're saying that you would allow anyone to work with children no matter who they were?

 

No, no, no, absolutely not. It's just unfortunate that people who have to pay for their CRB's don't actually contribute to a foolproof deterrent.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

what IF, they wanted to take your DNA to work with these vulnerable people...just incase some was collected at a sex crime scene in the past but you were never caught..?

 

if we are being careful with these vulnerable people..better to do it properly and not take any chances..?

 

If 'I' were never caught? Careful TDD that's libel

 

I totally agree actually TDD, if they needed to do that, then I would happily participate. Anything to make sure children are not abused by those in the hands of those in a position of trust and/or authority.

 

...I bet you almost fell off your chair reading that

Edited 10 January, 2010 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[View From The Top]

No, no, no, absolutely not. It's just unfortunate that people who have to pay for their CRB's don't actually contribute to a foolproof deterrent.

 

Nothing is foolproof.

 

Up here we've just had a DS sent down for grooming and he worked in the online kiddy fiddling unit!

[Whitey Grandad]

I totally agree actually DD, if they needed to do that, then I would happily participate. Anything to make sure children are not abused by the hands of those in a position of trust and/or authority.

 

...I bet you almost fell off your chair reading that

Sadly, I don't believe that any of these checks are going to make life safer for the children.

[Whitey Grandad]

Nothing is foolproof.

 

Up here we've just had a DS sent down for grooming and he worked in the online kiddy fiddling unit!

'The price of peace is eternal vigilance'

[Give it to Ron]

I've just got mine out and had a look at it (no, behave!). It includes:

 

Position applied for: FOOTBALL REFEREE - CHILDRENS

Name of employer - HAMPSHIRE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION

 

I still need to the the Child Protection course before I can get back to refereeing, even though I only do adults' games. The argument given is that there might be a player who is under 18, yet the other 21 players don't need a CRB :confused: It's another reason why you can't get the refs today, not that they are all paedophiles, just that it's another obstacle to overcome.

 

They were also talking about bringing it in for linesman(assistant refererees) at a meeting I went to a couple of years ago but that was thrown out.

[View From The Top]

Sadly, I don't believe that any of these checks are going to make life safer for the children.

 

Want to take the chance of doing nothing?

[Ponty]

Want to take the chance of doing nothing?

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

[View From The Top]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

 

That's what it reads to me.

[Whitey Grandad]

Want to take the chance of doing nothing?

That's always the dilemma. The problem is that you end up with a society where everybody is a suspect, where everybody is looking over their shoulder to see who is watching them, where nobody is willing to take a chance or to take responsibility for making a decision. A society where everybody is living in fear, real or imaginary.

[Whitey Grandad]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

Even I don't think that's what I was saying.

[View From The Top]

That's always the dilemma. The problem is that you end up with a society where everybody is a suspect, where everybody is looking over their shoulder to see who is watching them, where nobody is willing to take a chance or to take responsibility for making a decision. A society where everybody is living in fear, real or imaginary.

 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, everything was much better in the days of boys in shorts, doffing your cap and rationing.

 

So, we do nothing to at least try and protect kids?

 

Perhaps you prefer the approach the Catholic church in Ireland used to take to the issue of child protection?

[sotonjoe]

Sadly, I don't believe that any of these checks are going to make life safer for the children.

 

What an absurd statement.

 

How can it possibly not make children safer?

 

Nobody is suggesting it's foolproof, what is? But how on earth can you suggest that checking criminal history doesn't make kids any safer?

[Give it to Ron]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, everything was much better in the days of boys in shorts, doffing your cap and rationing.

 

So, we do nothing to at least try and protect kids?

 

Perhaps you prefer the approach the Catholic church in Ireland used to take to the issue of child protection?

 

I don't think he meant that at all, just that putting all your trust in a certificate carried out by a 3rd agency isn't all that safe really is it?

Self policing and parental responsibility is the only way - I never ever gave lifts to team mates of my son/daughters teams without having someone else in the car - something I learnt as part of my FA child protection.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, everything was much better in the days of boys in shorts, doffing your cap and rationing.

 

So, we do nothing to at least try and protect kids?

 

Perhaps you prefer the approach the Catholic church in Ireland used to take to the issue of child protection?

There's nothing wrong with that. The British public was better fed during rationing (before my time, by the way). But I have never said that we should not be saware of the potential for abuse, rather that we should not go creating monsters where none exist. I do not believe that a blanket CRB check will stop abuses, any more than a body scan at airports will stop terrorist attacks. We must never confuse activity with action.

[Whitey Grandad]

What an absurd statement.

 

How can it possibly not make children safer?

 

Nobody is suggesting it's foolproof, what is? But how on earth can you suggest that checking criminal history doesn't make kids any safer?

Not absurd at all, and if you put your trust entirely in such a sytem then you are taking and enormous risk with children's saftey. Sadly, I do not believe that checking criminal history will prevent further abuses from happening, any more than I believe that having a Health and Safety Act will make any of us healthier or safer.

[Thedelldays]

so...depsite the fact we dont want the authorities collecting and storing information on us...we also want them to tell us we are safe to work with children..

 

surely, there is a clash going on there to a degree

[Whitey Grandad]

I don't think he meant that at all, just that putting all your trust in a certificate carried out by a 3rd agency isn't all that safe really is it?

Self policing and parental responsibility is the only way - I never ever gave lifts to team mates of my son/daughters teams without having someone else in the car - something I learnt as part of my FA child protection.

Very wise, although that is to protect you from accusations as much as to protect the children from harm.

[Whitey Grandad]

so...depsite the fact we dont want the authorities collecting and storing information on us...we also want them to tell us we are safe to work with children..

 

surely, there is a clash going on there to a degree

We can only cover official positions. Unfortunately there are a few million parents out there who do not provide the loving protective environment that we would all like to see.

[Give it to Ron]

Very wise, although that is to protect you from accusations as much as to protect the children from harm.

 

True but it was an example about self policing as well - its the only way to ensure kids are not put in situations of being alone and at risk - no certificate will beat that.

[sotonjoe]

We can only cover official positions. Unfortunately there are a few million parents out there who do not provide the loving protective environment that we would all like to see.

 

RIght, but the CRB isn't about screening parents, it's about screening people who work with children and that's what this conversation was about. Talking about parents who abuse children is a separate issue.

 

Checking to see if somebody is a convicted paedophile before employing them to work with children, surely reduces the chances of paedophiles working with children.

[sotonjoe]

Not absurd at all, and if you put your trust entirely in such a sytem then you are taking and enormous risk with children's saftey. Sadly, I do not believe that checking criminal history will prevent further abuses from happening, any more than I believe that having a Health and Safety Act will make any of us healthier or safer.

 

Nobody is putting their entire trust in the system; if you read the thread you'll see there's much scepticism about the current system. However, to say that it does not increase safety at all is just plain wrong.

[Thedelldays]

Nobody is putting their entire trust in the system; if you read the thread you'll see there's much scepticism about the current system. However, to say that it does not increase safety at all is just plain wrong.

perhaps the system would work better if we allowed them to record our movements more and hold more info on us..?

[Ponty]

perhaps the system would work better if we allowed them to record our movements more and hold more info on us..?

Ha... You should work for the government.

 

It won't be long before the mantra (against those who oppose DNA collection) changes from "You've nothing to fear if you've nothing to hide" to "If you don't want your DNA collected you're basically pro-kiddy fiddling".

[sotonjoe]

perhaps the system would work better if we allowed them to record our movements more and hold more info on us..?

 

For teachers I guess it's not really an issue.

 

A teacher charged with child related offences is hardly going to be able to keep it under wraps.

 

I don't know how volunteer organisations like the Scouts etc work so can't comment on them.

 

There's something to be said for holding more info about us though I guess.

[View From The Top]

There's nothing wrong with that. The British public was better fed during rationing (before my time, by the way). But I have never said that we should not be saware of the potential for abuse, rather that we should not go creating monsters where none exist. I do not believe that a blanket CRB check will stop abuses, any more than a body scan at airports will stop terrorist attacks. We must never confuse activity with action.

 

Where as you simply advocate inaction.

 

I would suggest you go and look at what a full disclosure, along with the safeguarding agency, covers.

 

Also look at why it was introduced.

 

Nothing is foolproof but I'd sooner we tried than hark back to some mythical golden time when the establishment considered kids fair game.