DBS ( formerly CRB ) . New extended checks.

[MrGongGong]

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.

But the CRB (and DBS) only looks for criminal convictions, if you don't have one (because you haven't done anything to warrant one OR you haven't been caught) then you don't have a problem getting one.

Don't get me wrong, i'm all in favour of protecting children and vulnerable adults BUT this doesn't seem to be an effective way of doing it.

[Serial_Apologist]

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

Thank goodness you're not being serious.

[Beef Oven!]

War on the Terraces.......

[Beef Oven!]

But the CRB (and DBS) only looks for criminal convictions, if you don't have one (because you haven't done anything to warrant one OR you haven't been caught) then you don't have a problem getting one.

Don't get me wrong, i'm all in favour of protecting children and vulnerable adults BUT this doesn't seem to be an effective way of doing it.

The references from the previous employer would have stopped Shipman. He moved from job to job without anyone asking the last hospital/GP Practice if he was a good employee/doctor. The law was changed so that NHS employers are not allowed, legally to employ someone without at least two satisfactory references. The referee may not be aware of criminal convictions or cautions, hence CRB checks. I don't like excessive state involvement any more than you, but this is a necessary evil. Let's move on.

[Barbirollians]

The regulations as far as they relate to disqualification by association strike me as ripe for an attack under the European Convention on Human Rights on the basis that they are disproportionate to any legitimate aim .

Secondly, the decision to seek to apply them to schools strikes me as doubtful . The regulations refer to persons looking after children . Looking after children is a term used in a particular context namely those looking after children means children in care e.g care home workers, foster parents . It is very doubtful it applies to teachers at all .

Time for the teaching unions to stop whining and get their chequebooks out for a judicial review .

[teamsaint]

The new checks on other household members are not a necessary evil, and especially not when offences totally unrelated to child protection are involved.

[Beef Oven!]

Are you sure that's what the law requires?

[Barbirollians]

The new checks on other household members are not a necessary evil, and especially not when offences totally unrelated to child protection are involved.

Indeed , hence my view that they are disproportionate to any legitimate aim and the regulations are open to challenge as being in breach of the ECHR under Article 8

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed , hence my view that they are disproportionate to any legitimate aim and the regulations are open to challenge as being in breach of the ECHR under Article 8

Of course, those perfidious bureaucrats in Brussels are the over-seers of British law, nowadays.

[Barbirollians]

Of course, those perfidious bureaucrats in Brussels are the over-seers of British law, nowadays.

Oh dear what a true member of UKIP you are - getting your facts entirely wrong - the European Convention on Human Rights ( drafted by the UK in 1948 and to which every country in Europe except Belarus is a signatory )and the European Union ( which is in Brussels ) are two entirely different entities.

[teamsaint]

Are you sure that's what the law requires?

Details here of what is being implemented under the 2006 act.

http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/Whatsnew/NASUWTNews/Nationalnewsitems/NASUWT_013431

I think some of the interpretation is being challenged by the unions.

I don't think places like hospitals are covered, but if they aren't , this sort of regulation could no doubt be easily extended.

Not hard to imagine where governments could go with this, in terms of other issues.

[MrGongGong]

Oh dear what a true member of UKIP you are - getting your facts entirely wrong - the European Convention on Human Rights ( drafted by the UK in 1948 and to which every country in Europe except Belarus is a signatory )and the European Union ( which is in Brussels ) are two entirely different entities.

He knows that but likes to pretend that the are the same

[MrGongGong]

The references from the previous employer would have stopped Shipman. He moved from job to job without anyone asking the last hospital/GP Practice if he was a good employee/doctor. The law was changed so that NHS employers are not allowed, legally to employ someone without at least two satisfactory references. The referee may not be aware of criminal convictions or cautions, hence CRB checks. I don't like excessive state involvement any more than you, but this is a necessary evil. Let's move on.

So the CRB would be entirely useless then (which IS the point)
There are better ways of doing this

[Beef Oven!]

Details here of what is being implemented under the 2006 act.

http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/Whatsnew/NASUWTNews/Nationalnewsitems/NASUWT_013431

I think some of the interpretation is being challenged by the unions.

I don't think places like hospitals are covered, but if they aren't , this sort of regulation could no doubt be easily extended.

Not hard to imagine where governments could go with this, in terms of other issues.

It's unlikely that the NASUWT will have got this wrong.

Seems at first sight to be OTT.

However, I wonder what the thinking behind it is. Maybe it's not disproportionate.

[Beef Oven!]

So the CRB would be entirely useless then (which IS the point)
There are better ways of doing this

The CRB would not be entirely useless. It's absolutely essential. Employers need to know if prospective employees have convictions that would make their engagement inappropriate, particularly where services to vulnerable people are concerned. References are important too. But I acknowledge that it is not possible to weed every potential danger out.