I thought CRB was for working with vulnerable people too.
Things that they don't like for working with children are assaults, drugs and pervy things
It's for working with children, vulnerable adults and to ascertain wether or not you pose a potential 'risk' to those you will be responsible for. As pointed out, violence and noncing tend to exclude you somewhat, for good reasons mainly.
But I'm opposed to the way CRB checks seem to be now demanded by anyone and everyone, like here:
I've just done one in order to volunteer at my Son's Beavers group.
See, the primary concern here isn't so much the safety of the children, but to prevent possible legal action being taken against the organisation. In the case of nonces it's of course valid, but in other cases, it can cause prejudice towards individuals.
CRB checks go back right to when you were 16. Every single conviction, spent or otherwise, is recorded on there. Why I object to so many organisations and agencies being able to demand them, is that it acts contrary to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which was established in order that those who have 'served their time' and repaid their 'debt to society' should be treated as equally as all others. Whilst i am not against convictions for certain crimes (rape, serious sexual assault, noncing kids) to carry future restrictions on the type of work individuals can do, the fact that all sorts of people can access CRB information is counter-productive for an individual who may well have made adequate amends and become a better person.
I feel that only professions where an individual will be solely responsible for kids/vulnerable adults should require any form of vetting process, and that all the organisation/employer can ask for is 'suitability to do this type of work'. Those making the critical judgements of an indiviudual's suitability to do a particular type of work should be trained, qualified people.
I got done for violent assault when I was 16. That will forever be on any CRB check. That it is, could hinder possible future employment opportunities for me, because of the prejudices of the employer. Normally, under the RoO Act, you are not obliged to state wether or not you have any criminal convictions, but it seems that a growing number of organisations and agencies can demand such information (often without genuinely good reason), which places people like me at a disadvantage. Someone can do something in a moment of madness, then do the sentence that is handed out to them, yet continue 'paying' for their mistake for the rest of their life.