CRB Checks To Be Eased

[Philtaz]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16931352

That is a potential timebomb, surely? We hear enough stories about people who have slipped through the net. Paedophiles are the worst type of offender who prey on the most vulnerable and malleable members of society, our children.
That aside the potential for subsequent litigation is mind boggling. Surely a CRB check is far safer and cheaper than retrospectively paying out large sums in compensation?
And in this present society I can already imagine a scenario where a paedophile sues because he was put in a position of trust, succumbed to temptation and will argue it was the fault of the local authority who placed him in such a position without proper background checks being carried out!

[jackthehat]

<<He also conceded that schools and other organisations would be allowed to insist on CRB checks: "We want to emphasise the importance of good sense and judgement by the managers on the ground when they look at the issue.">>

Doesn't that fly in the face of the headline?

[Gromit]

They say the amounts of checks is disproprtionate. Which is actually harming children. They miss out on trips and sports and other good stuff because the supervising person has not been CRBed.

I have no data as to whether the scheme is even working or not. There are still cases or children being abused or worse. Has it fallen significantly since CRB's were mandatory, or has it made little fifference?

[rov1100]

I know a health worker who has to continually apply for CRB checks as she works at differernt establishments. This is not only a waste of time but causes enormous expense.

The solution is to apply just once and take the CRB with you.

[VHG]

Lets imagine Harold Shipman had been CRB checked.

Local GP, pillar of society, he would sail through a CRB check.

But he had killed about 200 people, but becuase he had never been caught he had no criminal record.

Makes a mockery of the CRB system.

[Philtaz]

Slightly off-topic VHG. Shipman's (elderly, not children) vicitims had no recourse, no one could tell on him because they were dead. If you're going to argue that he had access to children as a GP I'd retort that any youngsters he would have seen during his normal working day in a practice would have had their parents present.

If checks were dropped for convicted paedophiles these types of offenders often invariably move about as a result of being unable to settle as a result of their crimes. This is how they 'slip through the net' or are not monitired correctly as a result of cutbacks and lack of inter-departmental and local authority co-operation.
That's how Huntley 'slipped through the net'.

[Gromit]

At the christmas the Police double breathalysing motorists. After christmas they ease off. Do you think that is a mistake? Should the numbers being breathalysed be doubled are quadrupled all the time. It would cost a lot more money and disrupt a lot more innocent drivers, but if it meant just one more dangerous driver was arrested, then would it be worth it?

Same with CRB checks. There is a point where you catch people. After that, doubling or quadrupling the checks does not mean you will catch twice or four times as many people. There is a view that we are overdoing them, and doing less would not significantly change the numbers caught.

[Philtaz]

It's more a case of preventing as opposed to catching though Gromit.

Everyone who works/deals with children should have one, then maybe a monitoring system if concerns are raised.

I'm a former Serviceman with an exemplary record, former Special Constable, currently work in the NHS but still had to have one done recently after completing a WRU Referee's course and rightly so. The cost of CRB checks is minimal in comparison to potential litigation. Even PNC checks take only seconds. Yes it can be time consuming but you can't really put a price on the safety and wellbeing of a child.

[Gromit]

Philtaz,

Does it prevent anything though? I have not seen any data to show that there has been a significant fall in these sort of crimes. If anything, it gives a false sense of security which is just as dangerous. Your link in the original question tells parents they should warn there children. Surely they should be doing that regardless of the number of CRB checks being done.

It sounds like you had no trouble paying to have your check. Volunteer groups who rely on elderly or unemployed people to drive minibuses have seen a drop in people giving their time, and they attribute that to the cost and mither of the CRB checks.

[Philtaz]

No costs incurred by me for my check Gromit, the club covered it as they're getting my time for free. £26 for a standard check seems reasonable though, given the potential for litigation that I mentioned.

[bednobs]

the CRB check is ridic if you ask me. All it proves is that on the day it was carried out, you hadn't previously been convicted of anything

[237SJ]

I think the system needs to be reviewed. I read an article about a woman who wanted to do some voluntary work with the homeless at christmas. She couldn`t volunteer because she had to get a CRB check (at her own expense). She tried some other charities and was told the same. The whole process was such a hastle that she gave up. I`d like to see some statistics regarding instances of crimes against children since the checks have been introduced. My guess would be that the majority of crimes are committed by people in the family/friend circle. Checks are still necessary though. In some industries they are for security reasons as much as to protect children. They are already being eased a bit as from next month, they can be completed online (probably to save money).

[smart1]

Actually, I welcome this idea. Last year I signed up with a scheme to allow my spare bedroom to be used for a homeless teenager. Of course I had to suffer the CRB chck. Turned out because of something my ex did, there was a 'shadow' on my character. I could have argued against it, but having been through similar battles in the past, just decided to withdraw from the homeless programme. I feel I could have made a difference but for this intrusion.

[Philtaz]

http://www.moneymagpi...ur-questions-answered


How much does it cost?

The cost of the checks vary:

A standard disclosure from the CRB currently costs £26.00.
An enhanced disclosure from the CRB will cost £44.00
If you are a volunteer then your check is free.

However, on top of these charges you will pay administration fees which will vary according to the different Registered Bodies, but are usually in the region of £20 plus VAT.

CRB checks are only valid in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and for Scotland you must get your check done by Disclosure Scotland. All checks carried out cost £20 and then you’ll have to pay the Registered Body’s administration fees on top.

[Zeuhl]

^^
Agreed. And perhaps more seriously as gromit and bedknobs have argued, it can create a false sense of security that because someone has been CRBed they must be trustworthy.

Nothing should be allowed to dilute or deflect parental vigilance.

[smart1]

I accept all that. My CRB check WAS free - but as I say, because of something my ex did, I felt I had to withdraw.

[Philtaz]

There will always be those for and against but personally where children are concerned I'd go for the stringent methods every time, but that's just me.

http://www.streathamg..._advanced_CRB_checks/

[Philtaz]

I quite agree Zeuhl, which is why when there are no parents present I'd like to think that those charged with their care and welfare in my absence are fully authorised and cleared to do so.

[Zeuhl]

^^
I respect that phil

as long as you accept that those 'authorised and cleared' might be a paedophile.