The Criminal Records Bureau is a wasteful and inefficient quango, unable to perform the impossible task it was given. The CRB check fails to deliver its aim of safeguarding children and vulnerable people as it:
a) It is slow, costly and inefficient - CRB checks take an interminable time to process, months on end, in which time the organisation requesting the check has either employed the person anyway, or has left them sitting on their hands at home doing no work. This prevents people who would be perfectly suited to working with children working with them.
b) It creates a false sense of security - a CRB is no security against someone being a paedophile or sexual predator; it only shows that they have not been one in the past. As such it engenders a sense of false security, whereby dangerous people are not scrutinised as they have the right piece of paper. The tragic events in Soham in 2003 demonstrate this.
c) Poisons society - by requiring the intervention of the police and the state to ensure that every interaction with children is 'safe' (or not, see 'b'), the CRB creates dangerous mistrust between parents, adults and children. The assumption is one of criminality without the correct vetting by the state.
A simple, common-sense approach to child protection, based on both responsible and clear headed thought by those appointing people to work with children and vulnerable people - while also allowing them to personally check on their employment history and other details (as you would for any other job) by directly contacting the relevant police authorities if necessary - would improve child safety more than a CRB check, conducted by faceless and unaccountable officials.
I therefore propose that the requirement for CRB checks be removed, and that the CRB be abolished.
The above also applies to the Independent Safeguarding Authority, the 'mini' CRB - another quango looking to check those who might have contact with children - i.e. everyone!
David Wickes
Why the contribution is important
The CRB is an abdication of responsibility from those employing people who work with children and vulnerable adults to an unaccountable and inefficient organisation which has done nothing to increase child safety, but rather creates a sense of false security which may have dire consequences.
By re-empowering employers with the responsibility to scrutinise their employees themselves, children will be made safer and society a friendlier place.
Is this idea inappropriate? Please login to report this idea to a moderator
Current tags
BAD IDEA!
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/[…]/
I'm suggesting that by making employers themselves responsible - and liable - for performing adequate checks on their employees (as you would have once in, say, a bank for fraud), society will be made safer.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/03/crb_errors/
Moreover the real indicators of poetentially deviant behaviour may not have manifested themselves to the police or a court - we are talking about devious people here.
The net result is that society is the loser. We need to stop this paranoia and fearmongering.
The problem with vetting rules as they stand now, is that they fail to distinguish between serious criminals and minor offenders. This is because all CRB checks in England disclose details of spent convictions.
Murderers, rapists, paedophiles and violent criminals should expect to have the details of their crimes revealed to potential employers. Shoplifters who picked up a caution, aged 16 and never committed any further crime, should be looked in a completely different light.
evidence for that?
It is a silly suggestion though. The issue isn't the checks, it's how the checks are used or more often misused bys organisations insisting on fresh checks even when people already have recent ones.
I'm not sure how awatkinson gets "police checks" for £10? 15 years ago or so perhaps! Also the ISA has been suspended, nobody has had to pay that fee.
I was in a relationship for about 3 months with a violant and unstable girl who regularly hit and abused me and would be best described as a bully. She was also bigger and stronger than me (yes I should have left her, but then would you say that to a battered woman). One day in one of her moods she decided to try and push me down the stairs (she had thrown something at me and it had gone down stairs and she actually wanted me to go and fetch it so she could throw it at me again) and I ended up slapping her around the face to try and get her off me. We did not break up at this time but did later after I found she was going around telling everyone who would listen that I had hit her and I started getting threats from various friends of hers (two who had often been witness to her attacks against me). Nearly 2 months after it happened I was arrested in connetion with the assault on her. I explained what has happened, including that I had slapped her, and this was taken as an admission of guilt and I was cautioned. She was also questioned (at home, not the station) as I oviously said about her attack on me, but no action was taken due to lack of evidance (her word against mine, and her lying through her teeth). We were both planning to apply to do medicine at University. Due to my "criminal record" I've been told I would be wasting my time applying. She's perfectly clean. Since then she's made a few other false allegations against me which thankfully have not been proceeded with due to no evidance (one time I supposedly kicked her so hard leg so hard she screamed out in pain despite her wearing biking boots and having no sign of injury).
Now honestly, who would you rarther was looking after you or your family, her or me? Well I won't be, but she very well might.
In addition separate CRB checks for each role one undertakes are nothing more than a stealth tax.
What is the message we are sending to children and vulnerable people if every single person they encounter in certain activities requires a check? What happened to trust?
Without a doubt some safeguards are needed. It is foolish for politicans, government and others to pretend life is risk free. Equally people need to take ownership of their own lives. Let's give people the confidence to make decisions and teach them to trust.
An Independent Review of the CRB process is required as a matter of Urgency
The incidence of child abuse is no greater now than it was 50 years ago but we have put this hugely expensive system in place that does not stop an abuser getting a job with children if they have no record of any offence.
If a person has been cautioned when they were young this should not be held on their record for 100 years. If a person has been arrested but not charged or convicted this should not be revealed as soft information.
Plus people should only need one check, not one for each job that they go for, or this is going to have a serious adverse side effect for volunteers and charities, charities that rely on volunteers.
This system does not stop an abuser getting a job with children if they have no record of any offence.
Re-checks are at the discretion of the employer or regulatory body.
I am a father of three young children and I don't want them to be either abused or blown up.
But this is poisonous stuff; every grown up a peado unless the stasi says otherwise.
A single CRB check for those in full time education provision is not totally unreasonable, but...
We gotta stop this tick box nonsense approach to child protection. Ed Balls was the worst culprit - he was the Uber Stasi Commissar.
We should all watch 'The Lives of Others' about life in the GDR under the real Stasi to see how close we've come to this.
1) Yet again a person is seen as guilty until proved innocent, 2) Apparently a person need not be told why they have failed the check (if press reports are correct), so have no come-back. 3) It discourages people from working with children (and the target customers in general) which removes opportunities for activities and interactions with the wider adult population.
http://richardbaum.mycouncillor.org.uk/[…]/
http://richardbaum.mycouncillor.org.uk/[…]/
So if you are a childminder and you have a dispute with your next door neighbour about their cat fouling your garden, the neigbour can just call the relevant authorities and accuse you of being a child molester. And then your career is ruined - and you won't even know why.
Not only are you guilty until proven innocent - you can never prove yourself innocent: the record will just crop up every time you try to get a job.
A simple list of people with relevant serious sexual, violent, or crimes involving children is all that is required.
Why someone has to declare their entire 'spent' police record again and again is disgraceful. It discriminates and is beyond me. If a person’s record contains some non relevant caution the person still gets interviewed every time and in many instances loses the job to someone with a clean record.
CRB checks are simply a case of companies covering their behinds and has lead to them playing it safe and employing people with clean records. The ridiculous amount of positions that now require checks are testament to this.
I'm sure that the people that support CRB checks are the same ones that then criticise ex-offenders for being on benefits and not going back to work!
Hopefully now Labour have gone some common sense can be applied!
A supporting site as been created http://www.crbforums.com/ that is nothing to do with the government,register on the site > go to discussion section and in there is a petition to attempt to change this part of the ECRB.
Please log in to add comments and rate ideas
BAD IDEA!
Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate