management committee minutes

[Jon Brooke]

Awk,

You've managed to find a few examples that run contra to the trend.

I was talking about risk and probability.

I expect there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of well intentioned people that are not becoming involved in helping look after kids V a very few (if any) harmful people that will actually be stopped by a CRB check. Personally I think the system is well out of whack, as evidenced by your own example of having 4 CRBs on the go at once- what a bloody waste of time and money.

Justy as a matter of interest, do you think CRB checks would have prevented any of those women you cite from doing what they did? I don't.

Anyway, I wasn't necessarily suggesting scrapping CRBs for women, I was really talking about how to get round the nonsense with the parent I described.

[Mrs H.]

what a bloody waste of time and money.

But this is the whole point - it's got nothing to do with child protection - just like the plethora of new regulations introduced in all forms of working life (you wouldn't believe what it's like in the building trade these days).
It's a government job creation scheme - one which ultimately we have to foot the bill for so it doesn't look like taxes have been raised. That's all there is to it!

[Lumpy Lycra]

you don't need a separate CRB for different roles - in fact to the best of my knowledge and understanding there is no post with a legal requirement for a CRB. It is down to every individual employer and organisation to decide how best to use the system. As with so much these days, it is tempting to say "play safe" and insist on a new CRB for everyone you employ / engage as a volunteer, on the grounds that that way you can't be blamed if you employ / engage a child molestor.

And that is really, really dangerous - both in terms of not taking other precautions where a clean CRB is meaningless - and in stopping activities (potentially orienteering as we know it) by a disproportionate response to perceived risk.

[HOCOLITE]

CRB's are like supermarket trolley's. The strictness over requirements is higher in urban areas, just like the need for a ponud for your trolley. When you get more rural people trust others more and trust there own judgement. Next we'll be required to have a CRB to give other people's kids a lift in the car......... It's interesting which schools require all the information forms for parents transporting children and which don't. Oh and that will lead to more cars on the road.

[Harley]

I hadn't realised that criminal tendencies were so easily defined ... perhaps the residents of rural towns such as Hungerford, Soham, Dunblane, and others would have a view on that one.

[awk]

you don't need a separate CRB for different roles - in fact to the best of my knowledge and understanding there is no post with a legal requirement for a CRB. It is down to every individual employer and organisation to decide how best to use the system.

As of 12th May this year, it has been a legal requirement for schools to obtain CRB checks on new employees, under "The school staffing (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2006". I don't know whether there's anything equivalent elswhere in the UK.

As to the portability of CRB checks from one role to another, the CRB state "The CRB does not endorse the use of portability, due to the risks involved. Organisations that choose to accept a previously issued Disclosure do so at their own risk." Any employer who takes that risk isn't going to have a leg to stand on if any issue arose, so in effect separate disclosures are needed.

Jon - I know you are talking about risk and probability, and accept that in a given population there is likely to be a higher proportion of male abusers than female abusers. My point (not clearly stated) was that there is still a risk employing female staff, and to ignore that "on the balance of probability" would not be acceptable if that individual was one of the exceptions to your rule. I agree with the rest of what you say including:

Just as a matter of interest, do you think CRB checks would have prevented any of those women you cite from doing what they did? I don't.

. In one case, they might have done, in the other two, no. But the counter argument to that is that they would now, and that CRBs are only one tool in the campaign.

[Jon Brooke]

But the other ridiculous extreme is that you never employ anyone, just in case, and I happen to think that we are moving too far towards that end of the spectrum.

[Gross]

It's all crap!!!

[Adventure Racer]

Just as a matter of interest, do you think CRB checks would have prevented any of those women you cite from doing what they did? I don't.

In one case, they might have done, in the other two, no. But the counter argument to that is that they would now, and that CRBs are only one tool in the campaign.

But given that CRBs can't possibly detect everybody (would even the current version have detected Ian Huntley for instance?), don't they give a false level of reassurance, which might lead to people using their judgement less well, and actually therefore making the risk higher?

[ifititches]

Adventure Racer asks

“But given that CRBs can't possibly detect everybody (would even the current version have detected Ian Huntley for instance?), don't they give a false level of reassurance, which might lead to people using their judgement less well, and actually therefore making the risk higher?�

Unfortunately there’s not much evidence of a good use of judgment going on at the time of Soham and before either. Given that, since 1986, LAs could check police records, and had had, for many years, guidance on safe interview and appointment processes:-

“Ian Huntley applied for a job at Soham College under the name of Ian Nixon.The interview did not comply with DfES practice and the college accepted “open references�Questions were not asked of referees about his suitability to work with children. Gaps were evidenced in his employment history, by the use of years and not date.He took up employment on the same day as the request for police checks were made “

In addition, the police forces did not exchange information, one police force deleted a relevant record because of a data protection misunderstanding. Social services had not always passed on details of their investigations of underage sex to police, and I have a memory that also some charges of sex with underage (teenage) girls were not pursued by the individuals concerned. Some of these gaps have been remedied in the info flow to current CRB

Interestingly,since 1993 (years before Soham) the Home Office guidance for voluntary organisations working with children was based on the advice available to schools and councils and is

1. Adopt a policy statement on safeguarding the welfare of children.
2. Plan the work of the organisation so as to minimise situations where the abuse of children may occur.
3. Introduce a system whereby children may talk with an independent person.
4. Apply agreed procedures for protecting children to all paid staff and volunteers.
5. Give all paid staff and volunteers clear roles.
6. Use supervision as a means for protecting children.
7. Treat all would-be paid staff and volunteers as job applicants for any position involving contact with children.
8. Gain at least one reference from a person who has experience of the applicant's paid work of volunteering with children.
9. Explore applicant's experience of working or contact with children in an interview before appointment.
10. Find out whether an applicant has any conviction for criminal offences against children.
11. Make paid and voluntary appointments conditional on the successful completion of a probationary period.
12. Issue guidelines on how to deal with the disclosure or discovery of abuse.
13. Train paid staff and volunteers, their line managers or supervisors, and policy makers in the prevention of child abuse.

So all they've really done since Soham is add in the CRB checks for volunteers too

Totally agree with Lumpy and Harley that it discriminates in workplace against migrants who can’t prove their identity or their address, and denies them the right to the advantage of clean criminal record. It equally discriminates against young adults whose UK born parents have led chaotic existence through temporary housing, domestic violence and hostels and whose paperwork on birth and deed-poll change of surname by estranged parents has been lost. It’s yet another disadvantage to them in getting their lives together and out of the hole their parents have dug them into ( but even more discriminating is the need to obtain a bank account, and IMO that can be far more difficult, snotty and destructive of your self-esteem than CRB).

I wish, as much as anyone else, that none of the above had ever needed to be written, but I feel it’s not an NGB or the govt who have infringed my civil liberties; it’s the people who committed these crimes to begin with, and perhaps, and maybe more contentiously, the employers who didn't follow the safeguarding guidelines.

[Tatty]

He's no relation to Supersaint, honestly!!

[awk]

But given that CRBs can't possibly detect everybody (would even the current version have detected Ian Huntley for instance?), don't they give a false level of reassurance, which might lead to people using their judgement less well, and actually therefore making the risk higher?

Only if the tool is not correctly used, and in this instance I think it's the tool that's being abused, rather than its misuse.

One problem that we face in today's society is that there seems to be a view around that it is possible to totally control the environment we live in, and remove all element of risk. It's prevalent here, and it's prevalent in the way so many people approach outdoor activities/sport. That view is in itself often more dangerous than the risks that are being legislated against (and to that extent ties in with your comment). It is just not possible, as one can't legislate for every eventuality. However, one can reduce the risk by taking sensible precautions, and surely in the case of working with children, one of those is to know whether the individual concerned has got a sex offenders record. No, it wouldn't have caught Ian Hunter, but there are cases where reasonable checks have not been made, and sex offenders have been given jobs they shouldn't have been given.

What started this discussion off was whether the tool was being correctly used in checking planners/controllers etc. In my view, it would be being misused in that instance as it really is of little relevance. In my area of work (primary teaching) I regard it as a basic essential. Yes, there are problems as identified above, but that's something that needs to be dealt with on an individual basis, as my mother's family history should have been, and as Lumpy highlighted. Just because a tool is being badly used, does not make it a bad tool, and I do think (see Gross's latest comment), that this is in danger of happening here.

[Mrs H.]

Yes - to take this back to the origin of this thread - which was the appropriateness of CRB checking organisers and controllers - as I wrote in my Editorial this week by all means check people with responsibility for looking after the juniors

why check anyone else – after all juniors who take part in orienteering either come with their parents, teachers or coaches – and to suggest that any other official has any kind of duty of care towards them over and above any other competitor is likely to prove just another deterrent to an already reluctant membership

one member/planner/controller has already responded to it by saying that is how he would see it too and would withdraw from these activities. I would also say that some people might now be afraid to actually apply for a CRB incase they are turned down and the stigma attached to that. It would also be the kiss of death to MADO style initiatives (now 87 new members in 10 months) as we recruit planners/controllers in the car park on a very ad hoc basis - often using people who've mnever done it before - that would not now be possible. MADO works like one of those rolling road blocks whn a cycle race is coming through - we don't close the roads several months before - so to speak

[RJ]

Yes... all the discussions make sense. It is a sledge hammer to crack a nut...... but....

Are we prepared to have a known paedophile in our sport? The government wants these people in the community.... but in our back yard? Are we happy to have a paedophile acting as the organiser of our event? Surely we should take steps to make sure we don't have that situation. (got the t-shirt!)

[Bill]

In Scotland, applications for a CRBS check would be accepted only if it was for a child-related role, e.g. coach, junior tour manager. The governance is different in Scotland but the principles should be the same throughout the UK.

It is not just about child abuse though. Would you want someoen with a previous drink driving conviction driving the minibus at a weekend? Perhaps ok but you might want to know.