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.

Current rating

4.50943396226
Average score : 4.5
Based on : 53 votes
angry
Posted by angry July 02, 2010 at 13:23
This is just not acceptable. CRB checks have stopped thousands of perverts with previous convictions from getting jobs working with children.

BAD IDEA!

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

angry
Posted by angry July 02, 2010 at 13:23
This is just not acceptable. CRB checks have stopped thousands of perverts with previous convictions from getting jobs working with children.

BAD IDEA!

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

DavidWickes
Posted by DavidWickes July 02, 2010 at 13:25
As an example of the wastefulness of the CRB: charities since their introduction have had to spend an estimated 220 million pounds since their introduction. That's money from <i>charities</i> going to the government on a wasteful and inefficient system.

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/[…]/

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

DavidWickes
Posted by DavidWickes July 02, 2010 at 13:34
I don't doubt it has 'angry' - but it also rubber stamped other paedophiles to work with children, and branded other blameless individuals due to clerical errors.

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.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

DavidWickes
Posted by DavidWickes July 02, 2010 at 13:37
The CRB also has some pretty extreme moments of madness: 1200 errors in a single month:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/03/crb_errors/

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

awatkinson
Posted by awatkinson July 02, 2010 at 13:38
I could get a police check direct for £10; to go through the ISA costs £70 Why is it necessary? Lets stop accelerating peoples fears - abolish these agencies. It will save public expense. Most abuse happens within extended families but it would be unacceptable to legislate against that.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

jmoore
Posted by jmoore July 02, 2010 at 13:47
I agree. Many good people are deterred from contributing to the voluntary sector because of embarrassment at the prospect of disclosing some minor infraction dating back to their teenage years (eg. speeding or the like, wholly unrelated to one's sutability to work with children and vulnerable adults) on the CRB forms.

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.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

KidsRights2010
Posted by KidsRights2010 July 02, 2010 at 14:00
The whole system is a farce. As a father innocently accused by a bitter ex I am now unable to get a CRB (not that I want one but there's a point involved) yet she is and works with kids despite a confirmed sexual relationship with a convicted Peado. The systems seems to be there to stop people they don't like working with kids rather than those that should not be allowed to work with kids. Needs pulling apart and doing properly if it's going to be done at all.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Reasonable
Posted by Reasonable July 02, 2010 at 14:01
I think that the CRB functions should be reviewed and drastically limited.

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.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

como
Posted by como July 02, 2010 at 14:11
"CRB checks have stopped thousands of perverts with previous convictions from getting jobs working with children."

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.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

cooper_23
Posted by cooper_23 July 02, 2010 at 16:06
The CRB has apparently stopped "thousands" of "unsuitable" people from getting jobs working with children and vulnerable adults. That is hard to dispute, but there is no evidance at all that these were all "perverts", in fact there is no evidance to say they are a danger at all.

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.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

thankyouforasking
Posted by thankyouforasking July 02, 2010 at 16:50
I worked in Social Care until I retired 20 months ago. One second after I retired my CRB check became invalid. What utter nonsense.

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

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

mhouse
Posted by mhouse July 02, 2010 at 18:55
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.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Lindsay47
Posted by Lindsay47 July 02, 2010 at 19:26
I am a retired teacher. I have time and expertise but I will not volunteer for any role that requires me to have a CRB check. I have spent my whole career working with young children and I believe my CV should be sufficient evidence that I am a fit person to give my time voluntarily.
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.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

adriansmith
Posted by adriansmith July 02, 2010 at 19:58
I agree for all sorts of reasons, one of which being that I have a very common surname. A mistake or mix-up in this particualr area would be calamitous.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Midnight_Caller
Posted by Midnight_Caller July 02, 2010 at 20:29
CRB checks are a good thing although it should only include convictions that are not spent!

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.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

stargazer
Posted by stargazer July 02, 2010 at 21:16
The obsession with sex offenders puts unreasonable restraints on everybody else's freedom. CRB checks are expensive and supply teachers who work for various agencies and schools have endlessly to pay up for new CRB checks. The agencies are not efficient enough to ensure that they employ a teacher within a three month period and if they don't do so, the teacher has to have a new CRB check,(often) a new officious interview and references etc. All of this is expensive and inconveniencing to the teacher but does not actually make children safer

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

J
Posted by J July 03, 2010 at 10:46
People don't seem to understand the system. CRB checks do not carry a period of "validity". It is down to the employer to decide how they are used. The checks are also transferrable in most situations - search for "portability" on the CRB website.
Re-checks are at the discretion of the employer or regulatory body.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

J
Posted by J July 03, 2010 at 10:51
It is not the CRB that is slow & inefficient, although the process is. Delays in the system come when the police are asked to supply information on an individual. The CRB itself is actually quite efficient

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

sugarplumfairy
Posted by sugarplumfairy July 03, 2010 at 16:47
As someone accused of downloading and distributing child pornography (a completely unfounded allegation which I was not even charged for after police investigated me for over six months, tearing aprt my home, my life, and my computer). I would be unable to receive a CRB check. This is wrong. I am one of over 7,000 people all accused of this crime by the police as part of something called Operation Ore. The police later admitted that the operation was flawed due to mis-information resulting from credit card fraud and identity theft, however because I was initially arrested, albeit in good faith, by the police, I now have this sitting on my otherwise impeccable police record. How wrong!

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Ian_Roberts
Posted by Ian_Roberts July 03, 2010 at 23:35
Yes yes yes!

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.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

davidjackson3
Posted by davidjackson3 July 04, 2010 at 07:58
This regulation was yet another knee-jerk reaction to a problem, but it does much more harm than good. The early rapid changes that were needed highlighted to lack of thought, but the underlying problems as I see them (in addition to the well argued introduction to this thread) are
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.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

mhouse
Posted by mhouse July 04, 2010 at 20:24
I just wanted to let people know that Richard Baum a Liberal democrat has helped to fight against the injustices of the CRB. These links highlight the problems with CRBs:

http://richardbaum.mycouncillor.org.uk/[…]/

http://richardbaum.mycouncillor.org.uk/[…]/

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

ad100789
Posted by ad100789 July 05, 2010 at 12:39
I completely agree that the CRB is a weighty, costly exercise and I don't believe it has helped this country at all. As mentioned elsewhere, most of the reasoning behind it seems to be to catch people who may harm children (reasoning which while of course valid, has taken on wildly over-dramaticised proportions, where all men are seemingly suspected of being child abusers until they can show that they are not on a CRB check). It seems though to me, to be more a part of Labours two pronged attack on this country. One in the form of child-protection, and the other in the form of the threat of terror. We have become utterly paranoid about both. Would it no be better to return to a government which does not fear-monger, does not try to delve in to every aspect of our lives and control them? What a load of nonsense. We must be one of the most paranoid societies in the world. Let's get back to sensible government, hopefully the coalition government we have now will change things. I think CRB can be handled much better by giving schools more say-so in what they do, and by accepting that you cannot eradicate every risk in life. Unfortunately, no matter how far Labours policies crept into our lives, they did not make society better (at least I didn't think so), and I just don't think that massive state-machinery is the answer. We need to throw away rampant paranoia, bring back common-sense, individual responsibility, encouraging community and BRING BACK THE BOBBY.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Linni
Posted by Linni July 06, 2010 at 05:15
The trouble is that the system is open to abuse: what can appear on records is not just convictions but also malicious allegations.
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.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Jimbob
Posted by Jimbob July 06, 2010 at 12:28
 
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!

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

JSS
Posted by JSS July 19, 2010 at 10:48
People working with kids, mental health and the elderly should have a CRB but not others and it stops people getting into work! and as there is high unemployment it would help people get into work! its said that 1 in 4 guys have a conviction!

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Dgruntled
Posted by Dgruntled August 02, 2010 at 11:12
I am all for the CRB but under the old system where by only convictions are disclosed. To allow the chief officer to disclose at his discretion about allegations is crazy.

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 login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Please log in to add comments and rate ideas