DBS ( formerly CRB ) . New extended checks.

[teamsaint]

I have mentioned this elsewhere, with little response but somebody suggested opening a new thread to see if it got a response.

Since around the autumn of last year, an existing law, from 2009, I think ,has begun to be implemented.

Essentially,it says that anybody who lives in the same house as a person who would be disqualified from working with young children,is also prohibited from so doing.
offences that prohibit a person from working with young children include things like ABH, not just sex related offences,and include cautions.
So, for example, if you are a teacher, and somebody in your household has a caution for ABH, you are in danger of being dismissed.
County councils are implementing this, and unions are fighting it.
Apologies if the above is incomplete, but it is a really important issue, and it could easily affect totally innocent people, and is doing, with no obvious child safety benefit.

Here are the guidelines from Essex Council.

http://www.essex.gov.uk/Business-Partners/Partners/Schools/school-governors/Latest-Updates/Documents/ChildcareDisqualificationRequirements.pdf

Here is an NASUWT FAQ sheet.

http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/Whatsnew/NASUWTNews/Nationalnewsitems/NASUWT_013528

[Dave2002]

Seems heavy handed if it's as you say. Next we'll have living in the same street as ... then same town as .... then same city as ... !!!

[teamsaint]

Seems heavy handed if it's as you say. Next we'll have living in the same street as ... then same town as .... then same city as ... !!!

Dave ,it is happening.Ask around. Hampshire are busy implementing it. This is a fact.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Speaking as one involved in interpreting and enforcing laws and having some marginal involvement in CRB checks (my own and others'), this looks - please excuse the technical language - like a classic gov't f***-up! Legislation designed to look good and sound good ("The gov't has taken strong action on blah blah blah by legislating blah blah blah...") but which is practically unenforceable and may have even been intended to be so.

Still, it'll no doubt keep plenty of lawyers and courts busy, which is always a good thing And probably also the trade unions. (I hope?)

[Beef Oven!]

I have mentioned this elsewhere, with little response but somebody suggested opening a new thread to see if it got a response.

Since around the autumn of last year, an existing law, from 2009, I think ,has begun to be implemented.

Essentially,it says that anybody who lives in the same house as a person who would be disqualified from working with young children,is also prohibited from so doing.
offences that prohibit a person from working with young children include things like ABH, not just sex related offences,and include cautions.
So, for example, if you are a teacher, and somebody in your household has a caution for ABH, you are in danger of being dismissed.
County councils are implementing this, and unions are fighting it.
Apologies if the above is incomplete, but it is a really important issue, and it could easily affect totally innocent people, and is doing, with no obvious child safety benefit.

Here are the guidelines from Essex Council.

http://www.essex.gov.uk/Business-Partners/Partners/Schools/school-governors/Latest-Updates/Documents/ChildcareDisqualificationRequirements.pdf

Here is an NASUWT FAQ sheet.

http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/Whatsnew/NA.../NASUWT_013528

Essex County Council is talking round objects, mostly.

What does the statute say?

[teamsaint]

Essex County Council is talking round objects, mostly.

What does the statute say?

They might be talking round ones, but Hampshire council staff are being made to sign the new disclosure within a week, or face the inspector under threat of suspension.

In one local school, staff were intimidated into signing before an inspector would leave the school.

There doesnt seem to be much debate about the fact that the law requires these disclosures from those working with children under 8, or where children under 8 may be from time to time, which could include some secondary schools.

http://www4.halton.gov.uk/Pages/EducationandFamilies/PDFs/Schools/governor/DisqualBriefing.pdf

[Beef Oven!]

They might be talking round ones, but Hampshire council staff are being made to sign the new disclosure within a week, or face the inspector under threat of suspension.

In one local school, staff were intimidated into signing before an inspector would leave the school.

There doesnt seem to be much debate about the fact that the law requires these disclosures from those working with children under 8, or where children under 8 may be from time to time, which could include some secondary schools.

What is the issue here, the law or the council policy based on it's interpretation of the law?

[MrGongGong]

This seems (like the old CRB) to be simply more window dressing that won't protect anyone.

There was a plan a few years ago to include "soft" information in the checking process, but that was abandoned as it probably would have mean't that no-one would qualify.

[Beef Oven!]

This seems (like the old CRB) to be simply more window dressing that won't protect anyone.

There was a plan a few years ago to include "soft" information in the checking process, but that was abandoned as it probably would have mean't that no-one would qualify.

CRB checks offer a lot of protection. Dr Shipman would not have been in a position to kill people if CRB checking was in place when he was 'practising'.

DRB & CRB are the same thing, just another bureaucratic merger.

[MrGongGong]

CRB checks offer a lot of protection. Dr Shipman would not have been in a position to kill people if CRB checking was in place when he was 'practising'.

I wasn't aware that he had a criminal conviction before he was caught?
Ian Huntley would have been able to get one.

[DracoM]

And to think, if the Hull police had told the Essex police what they knew about the paedophile school caretaker, the Soham business might never have happened, and this bureaucratic shutting of doors after the horse has bolted might never have taken over our lives.

The status of single men in our society has been irrevocably tainted, every one a suspect.

But have you noticed how this checking has helped to reduce the abuse of children in the last fifteen years? Because I haven't.
What a sad and maimed society we live in.

[teamsaint]

nobody is challenging the idea of CRB checks of course.
But the idea that a person might lose their job, because they happen to live with somebody who, for instance, has a minor conviction, is both absurd and and dangerous.

[Beef Oven!]

I wasn't aware that he had a criminal conviction before he was caught?
Ian Huntley would have been able to get one.

The law changed to require NHS organisations to obtain satisfactory references from the previous employer and CRB checks. Shipman would have been sussed. He was able to move from job to job without statutory checks.

[Beef Oven!]

nobody is challenging the idea of CRB checks of course.
But the idea that a person might lose their job, because they happen to live with somebody who, for instance, has a minor conviction, is both absurd and and dangerous.

Fess up - what have your fellow householders done, to shit you up so much?

[teamsaint]

Fess up - what have your fellow householders done, to shit you up so much?

War on the Terraces.......