Shopping & Style3 mins ago
CRB Checks To Be Eased
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!
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!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Philtaz. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Philtaz
Camden Council driver cleared by CRB check abused child
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...gland-london-12334982
Peter Huntley was never convicted of anything prior to his murders, so it is likely that he would have still got the job under the present system.
Camden Council driver cleared by CRB check abused child
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...gland-london-12334982
Peter Huntley was never convicted of anything prior to his murders, so it is likely that he would have still got the job under the present system.
That's right Gromit but changes since the IAN Huntley case mean that cross agency co-operation and inter constabulary will hopefully greatly reduce the chances of another Huntley.
---------------------------------
Home Secretary David Blunkett ordered an inquiry into these revelations, chaired by Sir Michael Bichard, and later ordered the suspension of David Westwood, Chief of Humberside Police. The inquiry criticised Humberside Police for deleting information relating to previous allegations against Huntley and criticised Cambridgeshire Constabulary for not following vetting guidelines.
-----------------------------------
And Kidscape have raised other concerns:
http://www.kidscape.o...detail.asp?PressID=54
---------------------------------
Home Secretary David Blunkett ordered an inquiry into these revelations, chaired by Sir Michael Bichard, and later ordered the suspension of David Westwood, Chief of Humberside Police. The inquiry criticised Humberside Police for deleting information relating to previous allegations against Huntley and criticised Cambridgeshire Constabulary for not following vetting guidelines.
-----------------------------------
And Kidscape have raised other concerns:
http://www.kidscape.o...detail.asp?PressID=54
Huntley had 6/7 previous allegations against him but none proven, for whatever reason (lack of correct investigation, fearful witness, unwillingness of CPS etc). If records had been kept and maintained correctly and Police forces had communicated with each other his behaviour and M.O. would have been flagged or at least alerted someone that there was some sort of pattern forming. One allegation is just that, 6 or 7 is more than circumstantial.
It's the sort of behaviour that needs to be monitored and recorded, regardless of conviction. Police don't always receive a statement of complaint due to the unique circumstances of such acts but know who the local unconvicted wife beater is.
It's the sort of behaviour that needs to be monitored and recorded, regardless of conviction. Police don't always receive a statement of complaint due to the unique circumstances of such acts but know who the local unconvicted wife beater is.
I notice the offender in the link you provided committed his previous crimes abroad. That's a separate issue that needs addressing, not a lot the UK based CRB authorities could do, something discussed here:
http://www.theanswerb...uestion1101337-3.html
http://www.theanswerb...uestion1101337-3.html
if any paedophiles had actually been caught by a CRB check then it would be in every newspaper, on every news agency, practically on every billboard and politicians would be trumpeting the success of the scheme at every opportunity.
We are hearing nothing, draw your own conclusions.
On the other hand we hear about the providers of CRB checks not being accountable for mistakes that get made, we are hearing about people who miss job opportunities because of mistakes made on CRB checks and we hear about people suffering because of mistakes made on CRB checks, we hear about people who have to repeatedly pay for CRB checks at great personal expense, we aren't hearing about how this is being put right, draw your own conclusions there as well.
If it ain't broke don't fix it, well CRB checks are broke
If an employer requires a CRB check on an employee, prospective or otherwise, then the employer should pay for it.
If a job seeker is applying for several jobs then a single CRB check should cover them all and they should not need to apply for a new one every time
If a mistake is made that harms the individual the CRB check relates to, say by denying them a job, then the individual concerned should be entitled to recompense from the people making the mistake.
Its easy enough to fix, no one wants to do it though.
But even if it is fixed, it won't catch a single paedophile.
We are hearing nothing, draw your own conclusions.
On the other hand we hear about the providers of CRB checks not being accountable for mistakes that get made, we are hearing about people who miss job opportunities because of mistakes made on CRB checks and we hear about people suffering because of mistakes made on CRB checks, we hear about people who have to repeatedly pay for CRB checks at great personal expense, we aren't hearing about how this is being put right, draw your own conclusions there as well.
If it ain't broke don't fix it, well CRB checks are broke
If an employer requires a CRB check on an employee, prospective or otherwise, then the employer should pay for it.
If a job seeker is applying for several jobs then a single CRB check should cover them all and they should not need to apply for a new one every time
If a mistake is made that harms the individual the CRB check relates to, say by denying them a job, then the individual concerned should be entitled to recompense from the people making the mistake.
Its easy enough to fix, no one wants to do it though.
But even if it is fixed, it won't catch a single paedophile.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.