[Closed] Watch out there’s paediatrician about!

I don't see the issue? It allows people to get a certification that they have no previous for child / vulnerable adult abuse. It won't stop those where no previous has been recorded, but then again nothing other than diligence will ever do that, and it is far more sensible than full CRB checking which will still be needed for some types of positions.

As the Welfare Officer at our cricket club i think it's a good idea.

dunno, I've only read the more reactionary headlines, but as of next week I'll be CRB checked so it doesn't affect me.

the children?

The measures to stop paedophiles are being introduced from next month in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[b]Informal arrangements between parents will not be covered,[/b] [MY BOLD]

Children's minister Delyth Morgan said: "It is about ensuring that people in a position of trust that work frequently and intensively with children are safe to do so.

I might be alone in this but I prefer to know that the people who have contact with my children have been suitably checked and dont have previous as kiddy fiddlers. It grew out of the fact that the perpetrator of the Soham murders had previous but was still able to work in a schll where he killed two children.

It apears to me to be reasonable and (though intrusive of civil liberities) appropriate to the risk/damage.

"Ultimately safeguarding children is the government's priority."

I am a a youth worker and CRB checked and will need to under go this as I work with children and vulnerable adults.
You do realise that paedophiles work in areas where they can have unsupervised access to children and we need to be vigilant.

As the Welfare Officer at our cricket club i think it's a good idea.

Why does a cricket club need a 'Welfare Officer'? Just curious...

You'll need a CRB next just to go outside in case there are children out there. Though the odds on a child going outside with all the risk that involves is getting slimmer 🙂
I do believe we're at risk of producing a generation of children who adults are unwilling to interact with due to the current levels of panic.

[i]You do realise that paedophiles work in areas where they can have unsupervised access to children and we need to be vigilant.[/i]

You do realise that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by parents and relatives.

2nd IanM

You do realise that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by parents and relatives.

I agree we are in danger of over protecting children in terms of them never going outside . However what is so crazy about making sure that when children go out via an organisation that those people supervising the children are not sex offenders?
Imagine you send your child swimming and the instructor has not been checked for example ... does that seem like a good idea?
We check the background of dormen and security guards to make sure they have no background of violence /criminality then why not with those who work /volunteer with children.

To be honest if it stops one child being sexually abused then it will have been worth it as it is hardly a major pain to fill in a form is it?

It's going to make Labour's chums at Capita a lot of money! Peerages for the boys, eh?

What's the difference between the Vetting and Barring procedure and a full CRB check? Surely they are going to be more or less the same and involve a simialr administrative cost and timescale?

I know that when I applied for CRB clearance when some D of E award participants wanted to get involved in trail building, it took months to come through, and the parents of the kids ended up signing a waiver of some sort.

TINAS, you will have to re-apply for CRB clearance if you want to change jobs, so it's not as simple as getting it once and that's that.

Why does a cricket club need a Welfare officer?

1/ as an administrator to ensure that all adults who come into close / unsupervised access with children [or vulnerable adults] have undergone the necessary level of checking, and are aware of the approriate behaviour expected when around children
2/ as a point of contact for individuals to report any concerns about aspects of child welfare with respect to the cricket club (eg: inappropriate behaviour by coaches)
3/ to be appropriately trained to identify potential indicators of abuse and the next steps to take
4/ to act as the trained / appointed person at the club to act upon any of these concerns
5/ to ensure the environment the children play their cricket in is as safe and enjoyable as it can be.

The expectation is always that these checks are there to prevent sexual abuse but in my experience there is far more emotional abuse, bullying, etc. which in many / most cases is not actually intentional and when the inappropriate behaviour is drawn to the individuals attention, they are hugely remorseful about it. The individuals, in many cases as mentioned by IanM above, are in fact the parents, who by putting unrealistic expectations and pressure on their kids to 'perform' are in effect bullying them. And as IanM said, most abuse is by individuals known to the children so if I, or a teacher, or a coach can spot signs that cause concern we'd also know what to do next in those cases too.

By contributing to a well run club, with a strong and positive attitude to this type of legislation, like having a big lock on your shed or an angry dog in the garden, i believe we are making it harder for any ill-intentioned individuals to gain access to our kids. In the past like most clubs if a new member joined and expressed an interest in helping out at colts training, we'd have been glad. Now we simply ask them to undertake a basic level of checking first. Not one person has turned us down, and if someone did we'd be very suspicious why a stranger would a/ be interested and b/ reluctant. But even at that point it goes no further, we'd just simply refuse to allow him access, we wouldn't immediately call the police; I'd just informally mention it to the county WO and if she has had the same tale from a dozen other clubs in the area she'd be the one who is a full time professional person who'd take the appropriate next steps.

I'm sorry if people think we are becoming a nanny state but I don't see why any reasonable individual would think this kind of process is a reason for concern?

You do realise that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by parents and relatives.

Of course but its more difficult to monitor and legislate against that.
This is about "low lying fruit" so just because the number of cases is small it doesnt mean we shouldnt introduce legislation to help decrease it further.

Not an expert on the new checks either, but from what i think I know the new check covers only offences / suspicions relating to abuse / malpractices; the full CRB covers all offences.

In the past we had to use CRB's because that was all there was. The trouble actually was that it might prevent people applying / volunteering if they know a minor public order offence 15 years ago, with no relevance to child welfare, is going to be raked up again.

The other difference being that the Vetting and Barring scheme will be more accessible to people who have a reasonable need to know whether an individual is registered.

I agree with Junkyard.

Theotherjonv, that's not quite correct, though, is it? From what I understand the Vetting and Barring scheme could potentially cover a lot more people who come into contact with children than the current required CRB checks.

I wouldn't be very likely to volunteer at a youth cricket club as I dislike both youths and cricket. But the idea that if I did happen to want to volunteer my time and goodwill the first thing that would happen would be some berk assuming that I was there to sodomise the children would put me right off. I can find many other uses for my time where I am not assumed to be a deranged sexual predator until proven otherwise. 🙂

Watch out there’s paediatrician about!

Plenty in the NHS ......

I'm sorry if people think we are becoming a nanny state but I don't see why any reasonable individual would think this kind of process is a reason for concern?

I do think we're becoming a nanny state... it's bloody ridiculous all this suspicion, not conducive to a decent society I think... I guess I must've just been very lucky when I was an altar boy (for 3 years 🙄 ), went to Catholic Schools for all my schooling (some even had Brothers and Priests teaching!), a cub/scout/venturer (for 10 years) and a cricket/football/rugby player as a kid... surely somewhere in that mix I should've encountered one of these dastardly peado's that are apparently round every corner...

Having been through the CRB checks a number of time (most recently when I started assisting with a local air cadets squadron) I can't see the issue with the actual procedure, the issue is really with who picks up the cost of the application.

With cadet organisations the cost is met through central funds which means the parent organsation of the cadets (Army, RAF, RN) but with local sports clubs etc for kids who currently have to fight to find the funds for liability insurance etc it could be crippling. Parents aren't likely to want to swallow the costs so that they can drive someone else's children to an away match so no doubt it'll fall on the clubs to front the cost.

MrA: I'm not an expert as I said, and was answering the difference as i understood it between the checks, not who would need to have the checks which is a different matter. Yes, the requirement is wider in terms of the people who would need a check under the new scheme too, but still not IMHO too wide.

BigDummy: as the berk who'd assume you were there to sodomise the kids, I'm happy to announce that with that attitude you won't be welcome. And under the new rules, not welcome anywhere else either.

But honestly; there's a million miles between 'assuming you were there to sodomise the kids' and wanting to check there was no existing reason why you shouldn't be handed the keys to the clubhouse and left alone with a group of 9 year olds for an hour and a half every Tuesday night, and if you can't see the difference no amount of rationale will convince you.

S&J:

the cost of checking for volunteers (as opposed to people needing checks for employment purposes) is waived. So for a parent who helps to ferry the boys to an away game every couple of weeks, it literally is just filling in a form.

Psychle most of us dont experience sexual abuse or gun crime but it does not mean we should not legislate against it does it?

BigDummy - I see where you get the name from 😉

How about this imagine you apply for insurance and some jumped up little upstart starts asking you questions about whether you have a driving licence, for how long and whether you can drive and how many accidents you have had and how many were your fault, and whether you have points and what they are for ....assuming that I am some kind of dangerous chav boy racer

No one assumes anything of you everyone has been checked and I have to renew my CRB every three years does not mean my employer has got new suspicions does it.

Again it is to protect children from Paedophiles and requires you to fill a form and send it somewhere to get a pass ......this seems reasonable and appropriate to the threat.

the cost of checking for volunteers.....is waived.

So, who [b]is[/b] paying for it, then?

[/i] What's the difference between the Vetting and Barring procedure and a full CRB check? Surely they are going to be more or less the same and involve a simialr administrative cost and timescale? [i]

CRB- checks your NAME against any previous offences or links to other offences
Vetting- Checks your NAME, ADDRESS and CUIRCUMSATNCES- so if you neighbour who you chat to over the fence is a known gangster, or your in debt and likely to respond to bribes, or your flat was raided by the drugs squad on acconnt of your housemate being a drug dealer then it is made known.

[url] http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/everyone-now-assuming-you're-a-kiddie%11fiddler-200909112050/ [/url]

So, who is paying for it, then?

The government and hence taxpayer.

I sense another can of worms being opened here......

So, who is paying for it, then?

The government and hence taxpayer.

Strangely they are in essence one and the same thing. Government being the duly elected body to represent the rest of us who are in the main taxpayers. Sadly the vast majority of posts on here do display a shameful misunderstanding of that principle.

surely somewhere in that mix I should've encountered one of these dastardly peado's that are apparently round every corner...

Clearly by that token no need for any laws of any sort to protect anyone from anything, as the majority of folk don't experience much in the way of crime of any description.

Clearly by that token no need for any laws of any sort to protect anyone from anything, as the majority of folk don't experience much in the way of crime of any description.

Actually, I rather agree with that... in general people seem pretty damn good at making their own minds up about what's right & wrong, I reckon we'd function pretty well without laws to regulate (and complicate) our lives... but then I'm a bit of a closet anarchist, so that's my bias 😆

from another article on the subject:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/09/when_panic_shapes_policy.html

survey evidence suggests that one in nine pre-teenage children suffer serious sexual abuse. Experts estimate that a million children in Britain are or have been abused in the recent past.

@psychle: I'll bet you have encountered a child abuser several times in the past. You're one of the lucky ones that didn't suffer at their hands.

[i]imagine you apply for insurance[/i]

In this instance, I am trying to get something that I need, and am therefore unlikely to be put off by having to jump through mildly insulting hoops. If I am trying to give my time away for free, sadly, this is not going to be the case. This is all fine as long as it doesn't put off large numbers of people, which hopefully it doesn't. 🙂

Imagine you send your child swimming and the instructor has not been checked for example ... does that seem like a good idea?

Doesn't sound that unreasonable, if fact I happily packed both my kids off to swimming classes without worrying about it.

The more I read about life in the UK, the more I'm thankful I live in Spain, where adults and kids can still talk to each other without assuming there's some kind of evil intention!

@psychle: I'll bet you have encountered a child abuser several times in the past. You're one of the lucky ones that didn't suffer at their hands.

Meh... I doubt it... though how would I know I guess 🙄 On this actually, I sometimes (very jokingly) think of the fat compensation cheque I'd receive nowadays if one of the Brothers or Priests had tried something on 😆 BTW, I've never heard of anyone at any of my old schools/clubs/associations etc making allegations of improper activities...

survey evidence suggests that one in nine pre-teenage children suffer serious sexual abuse. Experts estimate that a million children in Britain are or have been abused in the recent past

I call BS on that... ****in 'experts' 🙄 keeping themselves in a job is all they're doing, that's my opinion anyway...

The more I read about life in the UK, the more I'm thankful I live in Spain, where adults and kids can still talk to each other without assuming there's some kind of evil intention!

I think you may be the one guilty of jumping to conclusions.
Without any statistics I would wager a small sum that incidents of abuse are broadly similar in both countries.

as i said in response to BD's post, there's a long way between assuming everyone that has contact with children is an abuser and making use of a capability to check they aren't.

What, pray tell, do people suggest we do instead?

Assume everyone's OK, don't bother doing any checking, and then round up the ones that are abusers once we catch them at it? The 9M kids that have suffered abuse kind of suggests this isn't a great tactic.

or perhaps an opt-in scheme. We'll assume you're OK unless you specifically advise us of your evil intent?

as a matter of interest, just how many potential peado's (in your initial 'first impression', or through failing a CRB) have you been approached by to help out at the club? Is it a common occurence?

[i]Assume everyone's OK, don't bother doing any checking, and then round up the ones that are abusers once we catch them at it? [/i]

Anyone know what the rest of Europe does?
As civilised countries they seem to function pretty well without the UK's obsession with CCTV cameras and DNA sampling that we seem to think is essential for well being, so I'm genuinely curious what the other major European countries do with respect to this issue.

It seems to be a little out of control, frankly, and is government jerking the knee in answer to a popular moral panic. Very few children are abused. Of those who are abused, very few are abused by strangers/cricket coaches/ballet teachers etc rather than their families. The measures to deal with the perceived threat are unlikely to be terribly effective at stopping abuse, although they will admittedly neutralise those who get caught once.

To achieve that (limited) goal in response to a hugely exaggerated threat, we do seem to be creating a situation in which the default position is polite suspicion of other people's motives whenever there is any interaction between adults and children. I tend to take the view that this not terribly healthy from anyone's perspective. 🙂

And apologies for the "berk" remark jon, that was un-called-for.

Without any statistics I would wager a small sum that incidents of abuse are broadly similar in both countries.

Probably, but I know that many other countries don't have the same level of tabloid-induced paedo-hysteria there is here.

A friend's Russian wife who came to live here found it really shocking and horrible.

Meh... I doubt it... though how would I know I guess

one of the problems is that offenders by their very nature are not out there 24/7 'offending'

Just because they weren't offending at the time, or didn't try anything on with you, doesn't mean they weren't an offender.

BTW, I've never heard of anyone at any of my old schools/clubs/associations etc making allegations of improper activities

I have - I've had occasion to speak to a couple of our club membership about inappropriate behaviour (bear in mind not everything is geared to sexual abuse - there's emotional abuse and bullying as well); other clubs in the area were also approached by an individual who was very cagey about going for CRB checking. The WO's at this club were concerned and approached the county WO who on checking with the Child Protection people at the police identified him as a 'rehabilitated' sex offender.

And by that token, i remain unshakeable in my belief that this sort of checking is a good thing.

Very few children are abused.

Not according to the report cited above. Not very many report the abuse, which i accept is because they are abused by people they know and trust who tell them not to.

Having reread my own post I also want to clarify. I have not had to deal with people in my club for sexual abuse. I had to talk to one player about distasteful innuendo type remarks which doubtless you and I would laugh at but which were inappropriate in earshot of a group of under 9's; and to one parent who verbally abused / bullied his own son for lack of effort during a game, which impacts on the responsibility to make the game as enjoyable as possible. Neither are particularly indicators they're about to commit a grave sexual offence; neither particularly require me to be an appointed WO to be in a position to point out why they are unacceptable. But they are.

Probably, but I know that many other countries don't have the same level of tabloid-induced paedo-hysteria there is here.

Thats my point really, perception and reality. Heightened sensitivy does not necessarily equate with heightened risk.

true surfer but ignorance does not equal safety either.

In terms of other countries it would be speculation only as the vast majority of abuse goes unreported and therefore even comparing reported cases does not mean comparing like with like.

In terms of this country sexual abuse, for example, the figures vary widely from 3% of the population to 30 % depending on terms of what abuse is and the survey.
Most is committed by people of a similar age via unwanted sexual advances through to assualt/rape. It is then family members next most likely, then its is people known to the family (not uncles aunties) but someone you know and trust with your kids who can say persuade the child they would not be believed because they trust me (this type the legislation is geared at ) like say a scout leader, football coach etc.
Finally stranger danger is the rarest and is usually flashing.
Of those who experience it those who are flashed tend to have only one incident of abuse. The others are abused multiple times over period ranging from weeks to years.
Females are more likely to be sexually abused than males.

I guess it depends on your definition of very few is 5 % very few? I don’t know but I do know whatever the actual number is it is too HIGH and (within reason clearly) anything we do to reduce this number should be supported.
It is only filling in a form FFS they are not taking your DNA and Genetic fingerprint you fill them in to get car insurance, a tv licence, why not to protect children?

I reckon we'd function pretty well without laws to regulate (and complicate) our lives... but then I'm a bit of a closet anarchist, so that's my bias

Fine with me, my bias is towards stabbing anarchists, decapitating their families and dipping my soldiers in the resultant holes. Can't wait for it to be legal!

junkyard, do you work in child protection? well raised set of points.

theotherjonv - Member

So, who is paying for it, then?

The government and hence taxpayer.

Yes.

The taxpayer also pays a fortune in managing the wide range of secondary effects of sexual abuse: mental health probems, suicides/inquests, drug addiction, violent crime (you'd be suprised how many inmates were abused as children), the investigation of 'uncovered' peadophiles such as the one in the nursey down here recently. Yes most people are abused by a family member or family friend, but nevertheless it may be a wise investment to screen out a few more abuse cases now and not pay for the knock-on effects of this when these children grow up.

Fine with me, my bias is towards stabbing anarchists, decapitating their families and dipping my soldiers in the resultant holes. Can't wait for it to be legal!

In my world it wouldn't be a question of legality, more a question of acceptability (by society/community as a whole). Don't reckon your bias would be considered acceptable and hence you'd quickly be eliminated 😉

Two interesting/amusing/worrying quotes from the Speccy Coffee House article on this;

Anybody who wants to be with children so badly they're prepared to pay sixty-four quid for the privilege is a nonce right out of the box, if you ask me. Maybe that's the whole idea?

I see there is a picture of Ed Balls in the Telegraph today sitting in a primary school. Does he have a CRB check certificate?

I think you may be the one guilty of jumping to conclusions.
Without any statistics I would wager a small sum that incidents of abuse are broadly similar in both countries.

Quite possibly - although I wouldn't be surprised if Spanish culture leads to different levels, whether higher or lower I wouldn't like to say.

What I do believe, though, is that the currently proposed checks are basically taking a default "guilty" position, assuming that noone can be trusted, and [b]this[/b] I believe to be completely OTT, unnecesary, and in the long run will be far more harmful than no check at all. After all, if you basically send out the message to kids that no adult can be trusted, who will they turn to when they really have a problem?

It grew out of the fact that the perpetrator of the Soham murders had previous

If anything he's a good example of why schemes like this are a waste of time!

No, he's a good example of both the good and bad side to this kind of scheme - the checks also include "soft intelligence", unproven allegations. The basic idea is "no smoke without fire", receive a couple of accusations from unrelated sources, and you're a marked man (or woman). Of course, you could be completely innocent, and out of your chosen line of work for ever, with no legal redress, but never mind: at least the kids are safe!

So it's worse than useless then.

aracer
That is the exact point clearly you read the article the OP linked to
FAIL

The scheme was recommended by the Bichard report into the Soham murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman by college caretaker Ian Huntley.
Huntley had been given the job despite previous allegations of sex with under-age girls, which were not passed on.
Two hundred case workers at the ISA's Darlington base will collect information from police, professional bodies and employers, before ruling who is barred.
The rules aim to stop those like Soham killer Ian Huntley accessing children
Even those like Huntley, without a criminal record, could be barred if officials are convinced by other "soft intelligence" against them.

Why does asking anyone to fill in this form assume anything? Does applying for gun licence assume you are a criminal or check to see that you are not one and compotenmt to own a gun?I dont really see what you find so offensive/different here.

I undertand the govt dont have a great track record on this with ID cards etc but on this they are correct. I have worked in child protection cases and when you see the damage done you would do something as trivial as this if it can protect just one person which it will probably do.

EDIT :if someone has

unproven allegations

It is now known that North East Lincolnshire Social Services had received four complaints of underage sexual relations against Huntley in the late 1990s.
Humberside Police said he was reported to them eight times by alleged victims, and he was also arrested once for failure to appear at court.
There were also three allegations of rape against Huntley.
One investigation resulted in a charge, in May 1998, but the case never came to court as the CPS was not hopeful of a conviction and dropped the case.
so then fit to work with children or would we jumping ot crazy conclusions by not letting him work in a school?

Why does asking anyone to fill in this form assume anything? Does applying for gun licence assume you are a criminal or check to see that you are not one and compotenmt to own a gun?I dont really see what you find so offensive/different here.

Because it's not about owning a weapon, it's about interacting with children. It's assuming that you [b]need[/b] to check [b]all[/b] adults that want to interact with children. If implemented it will undoubtably protect some children - but what about the other thousands whose lives won't be enriched by perfectly normal interaction with adults?

It's assuming that you need to check all adults that want to interact with [s]children[/s].GUNS

yes totaly different.

If implemented it will undoubtably protect some children

agreed so what more important to you then the message it sends out or protecting some kids from abuse?

Well, I'm a Scout helper (i.e. I show up at Scouts and do basic crowd control; occasionally I go on bike rides with scouts).

I'm probably going to give up doing this once it comes into force (November next year?).

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't read through the legislation to work out all the things that might happen to me and then go to bed and sleep peacefully. So I think it best to avoid it as much as possible.

For more analysis on why this is badly thought out, [url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/11/isa_outrage_too_late/ ]The Register[/url] has been warning on this for a year. The comments after are illuminating too.

interesting that all the people with any experience of working within the child protection system at whatever level, from my very basic to others on here who clearly are much more deeply involved see this as a good thing.

The dissenting voices all seem to come from those outside the system, with no knowledge of what really goes on.

I simply don't accept that you are assumed guilty as a default position. You are just asking someone to undertake a simple registration to confirm there are no reasons why they shouldn't be allowed access to work with children and vulnerable adults.

To Luked2; that would be your choice but then you'll miss out on the enriching experience that scouting / working with kids gives you, and frankly you'll be the worse off for it. Speak to the scouting association about what you need to do, they'll guide you through it / arrange whatever needs to be done and assuming you pass, as I'm sure you will, you will be free to continue assisting. There's nothing complex or time consuming, and if people get sucked into believing they shouldn't do it by the civil liberties campaigners, either in the wider world or on here, more fool them.

I'm sure the system won't be perfect. There will always be the clever ones who have never been caught or alleged against who will pass the test. It's then down to the vigilance of the trained people to spot and act. Someone will slip the net and offend and the system will be criticised. But if the default position is that we grant free access to anyone on the street as of right, the guy I referenced in one of my earlier posts would be coaching at a club near me now, building up trust to a position where he can then offend and dispute the allegations because everyone will know him by then and it can't be so-and-so, he's a lovely bloke. That was his M.O. and without asking him to do the check the club would never have flushed him out. That can't be acceptable, even once, can it?

Whilst my sample size is tiny, the one person I know who was abused as a child and is open about it is totally against this new procedure as it would have had NO effect whatsoever on the ability of their abuser to have access to them. Why, because, it was a neighbour.

This same person was active in social clubs, sports etc and it's clear from this thread that enough people will be put off from volunteering that their life would have been negatively impacted by these searches rather the legislation having helped them avoid the bloke down the road.

I have NO faith that the system will work from a technical standpoint. I have NO faith that unproven and baseless allegations will not be used as a weapon against people, preventing them from working in their chosen field.

Interestingly it will definitely stop my company offering work experience to local schools because we'd have to vet the entire staff, and that isn't going to happen.

yes atlaz, your sample of one is too small.

What is up for debate is the financial and as you rightly point out practical (company stops offering work experience)cost of this versus the potential benefits in terms of who you might 'spare' from abuse (moral/practical) and how much that will save in real money in terms of society managing the after-effects of that abuse. No one is saying it will be wiped out within a generation, but someone [i]is[/i] suggesting that on balance it is worth it.

In layperson's terms, keeping your car tyres at the correct pressure is a bit of a chore if you do it every week (and who here really does?) but it will slow down wear and decrease the chances of losing control of your vehicle. It won't mean you don't replace your worn tyres every so often or will never have a crash but most would aggree that it makes a small but discernible difference if you can be bothered to do it.

In general people that work in the field of child protection and investigation of abuse do have a good perspective of what is worth doing and what is probably not worth doing, just as experts in road safety etc do. The problem with all areas of safety and risk managment is that no individuals will be able to stand up and say "Hey, I [i]wasn't[/i] abused/injured/insert-other-misfortune-that-safety-measure-was-brought-in-to-prevent thanks to this marvellous scheme, hurrah!" But plenty of people will have their lives made more difficult by these rules without ever being able to see or meet the beneficiaries of these changes.

The possible fly in the ointment is that the main beneficiaries are in fact those who will be tasked to do the work (ie capita!)and the public relations implications of responding to poor journalism that makes your balanced decisions look a lot dafter than they really are.

In a nutshell, unless the experts are being 'bent' by their own interests or those of capita, then they know what they are doing and we should let them get on with it.

I have NO faith that unproven and baseless allegations will not be used as a weapon against people, preventing them from working in their chosen field.

Interestingly it will definitely stop my company offering work experience to local schools because we'd have to vet the entire staff, and that isn't going to happen.

Like the way no one actually answers the questions about alternatives so again.

[b]I assume the default position for everyone is that we dont want children to be abused or put at risk. We are only arguing about how this should be done. If you object to this what would you suggest as an alternative to a background check?[/b]

Working in a hospital and having tho be enhanced CRB checked i completly aggree with what they are trying to do with this legislation and wouldn't stop me from work with children.

I'm always unsure why people bring up Ian Huntley as an example in support of this sort of legislation.

Whilst he did work in a school, it wasn't the school the girls he murdered attended. Would stopping him working in that school have changed anything?

Brilliant news one more child protected then from a potentially dangeous situation then.

By that same token we could just ban children from leaving the house until they're 18, that way they'd be perfectly safe.

Or we could cut car accidents to zero by banning cars.

Etc.

julianwilson pointed out above, the question is financial/practical vs. benefits, I think that misses out the very important civil liberties aspect, another goverment check, another piece of paper to fill in before you can get on with a perfectly legitimate action.

I'm always unsure why people bring up Ian Huntley as an example in support of this sort of legislation.

By that same token we could just ban children from leaving the house until they're 18, that way they'd be perfectly safe.

Well apart from the fact that most abuse happens in the home. We cannot prevent it but we can minimise the risk which seems a sensible thing to attempt. Child protection is one issue children not going out is another. Th later also needs addressing as well.

Or we could cut car accidents to zero by banning cars

How about we ban dangerous drivers from driving cars and dangerous people from working with kids instead? Seems appropriate does it not?

very important civil liberties aspect,

Again I note none of the objectors answered my question again.
What do you propse then?

Junkyard - I don't think anyone is suggesting that someone with a history of multiple unprosecuted offences is going to be smoke without fire. However if I make an allegation about you and thereby prevent you working in your chosen career, is that fair?

People want to protect children and a fantastic goal is to reduce sexual abuse of children to zero. However, we know that even vetting everyone in the country isn't going to stop it. Or perhaps we should vet people and give them licenses in order to have kids of their own?

Another thing that is clear, from this thread alone, is that a lot of people will be feel even less like having anything to do with helping and mentoring children not their own and it's something that needs to be worked out.

The problem a lot of people have is not the AIM of the whole thing, just the manner in which it is being proposed to be carried out and the language being used ("If you don't like this, you're a paedophile" or "one more child protected then from a potentially dangeous situation then" for example). As you're clearly more informed on this than I, are there any stats that suggest how many children we can reasonably say would have been spared the misery of abuse if this legislation was brought into force, say, 5 years ago? I'm aware a lot of abuse isn't reported but lets start with fact and extrapolate from there.

what we really need is the paedofinder general

Atlaz, the benefits or rather 'reduction in abuse cases' from a change brought in five years ago will not be reliably measurable for at least five years more.

Most childhood sexual abuse goes unreported, at least in an official measurable way that can be presented as easily digestible statistics, which is what you seem to be asking for atlaz. (through my job) I know dozens and dozens of people who were abused as children, and children who have recently been abused. I know this from a variety of sources with varying degrees of measurability or reliability: my own hunches or suspicions (most abused children that we know of at least have some particular traits which are very rarely seen in children who have not been sexually abused), some just tell their friends/family, some also find the strength to tell a doctor, counsellor, mental health worker (which is where i personally fit in), some manage to tell social services and with the support of the last three groups, some even manage to tell the police. The minority actually make it as far as telling the courts and convicting someone with their evidence or statement. Yet however far that person gets with disclosing their abuse to someone who is able to add this to local or national statistics, or do anything about keeping other children safe from this abuser or bringing the abuser to justice, the effects to that person and back to my old point, the cost to society is theoretically the same.

There was a well known case round here of a man who employed and sexually abused teenage boys in a market stall, it wasn't until two or three of his victims came forward that the other [i]fourteen[/] did too. This was some fifteen years after the abuse took place in the case of many of these men. Several of them wer in prison and most of them had comitted numerous offences. (At a great financial cost to society, lest we forget) How do you carry out 'back of a beermat' cost/benefit analyses on that sort of thing with those sorts of variables? Someone is able to calculate a balance of probabilities on this but they will have an expert and national view over entire generations, not five or ten years.

I say again, leave it up to the experts to make this decision and trust that they are not being swayed by anyone with a financial interest in it.

You need to trust in a bunch of people who work in the field to make a balanced judgement on a set of extrememly fuzzy data.

However if I make an allegation about you and thereby prevent you working in your chosen career, is that fair?

Of course not but if our judicial system leads to innocent people being imprisoned is that really fair? Of course not but it does not mean the entire sysytem is unfair or should be replaced either. The implementation will be more subtle/complicated than that.

However, we know that even vetting everyone in the country isn't going to stop it.

Another thing that is clear, from this thread alone, is that a lot of people will be feel even less like having anything to do with helping and mentoring children not their own and it's something that needs to be worked out.

The problem a lot of people have is not the AIM of the whole thing, just the manner in which it is being proposed

[b]STATS[/b]
Any stats would be pure speculation. Figures on abuse vary widely (3- 33%iirc)with the assumption that most(10-20%) goes unreported. To extrapolate from an estimate for the next 5 years would be very innacurate and not much more than a guess. Lets just say it is one incident of child abuse prevented would that be enough for you to be willing to fill in a form? Would 100 be enough for you or do you require more children abused till you would fill in the form? Seriously what number would you think makes the proces reasonable?

In terms of people affected by this new measure they again vary widely. Higher estimates are 13.5 million people being vetted (I would expect much lower with most of those currently being CRB checked anyway).

About 3-8% of these will have something on their record. Dont forget the incident of a criminal record is about 20% for adult males alone.
Of these people think about 20,000- 40,000 will be "barred " from work.
Those figures are all best estimates. How many of those "barred"would have actually abused is again speculation.
Honestly all you have to do is fill in a form and children are better protected. You fill forms in all the time. Given WHY you are doing this it seems a reasonable and appropriate request.

[i]Honestly all you have to do is fill in a form and children are better protected.[/i]
Have other countries implemented such schemes and have any quantifiable evidence of an improvement in child welfare after the introduction of such a scheme?

As I said in some detail in the post above NO ONE can give a quantifiable figure of current abuse levels let alone future events being prevented. It is difficult to compare our country to others as international rates/methods of recording/accuaracy vary between and within countries as most measures are either estimates or measures of reports (approx 75 % go unreported in this country at the time and about 33% never are). I am no expert on pan European rates or world wide prevalance rates so I cannot really comment further but I would take any comaprison figures with a pinch of salt personally.
As to this legislation how would anyone know how many people would have been abused if it was not introduced? Incidents are underreported, abusers tend to abuse more than one and each person more than once etc.
Like seat belts I dont know how we would calculate how many lives it has saved but I hope we could all agree it has saved some lives. Likewise this legislation will prevent some (NOT ALL) abuse occuring. How many who knows but what is the exact number at which you would agree the legislation is appropriate? I suspect no one is going to answer that one.
And again the default position is we ALL want to protect children so what do you suggest if not vetting individuals with access to children? Again no one has answered that either.

Sounds like worthy intentions and bad law to me.

As to this legislation how would anyone know how many people would have been abused if it was not introduced? Incidents are underreported, abusers tend to abuse more than one and each person more than once etc.

Define abuse. There's mental abuse, verbal abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse. Its a matter of perception and this is where the issue gets cloudy. Its only a small leap to define shouting at a child as verbal abuse and legislate accordingly...

Or are you thinking of abuse as termed by the tabloid media?

Reactionary legislation such as this is bad for law and bad for society.

[i]And again the default position is we ALL want to protect children so what do you suggest if not vetting individuals with access to children? Again no one has answered that either[/i]

I suggest we don't do anything apart from procescute to the full extent of the law anyone who does abuse children, and keep such people away from children in the future. Our UK society seems to be getting more and more distrustful of others as a default position, and anything which excerbates this strikes me as a producing a worse environment to bring up happy children in than a better one.

Our UK society seems to be getting more and more distrustful of others as a default position, and anything which excerbates this strikes me as a producing a worse environment to bring up happy children in than a better one.

Ian, are you also deeply disillusioned that your employer didn't just take your word about your qualifications and previous excellent work performance? How dare they ask for your education certificates and chase up your references! Or perhaps you run your own business and trust that your prospective employees are who they say they are and can do what they say they can.

I went to some shops earlier today and they let walk straight in without once asking proof that I'd never been suspected of shoplifting.
We can spend all day producing facile examples to support our points of view 🙂

trust that your prospective employees are who they say they are and can do what they say they can.

Once again, yes. I trust the people I work with to have written their CVs with a certain regard for the truth - I don't doubt they've exaggerated, they've probably minimised the detail about some employers, but I don't expect them to tell me they know Java or C++ and for it to be a complete lie. As long as they can live up to what they've presented, I believe them. The default position is innocence, not guilt. And as long as they show me competance, I couldn't care less about their CV.

How long will it be till someone who's passed the checks is caught abusing? Then what?

I went to some shops earlier today and they let walk straight in without once asking proof that I'd never been suspected of shoplifting.
We can spend all day producing facile examples to support our points of view

...basic risk assessment Ian: likelihood of occurence plus impact/consequences of it occurring. I think the shop one is at the other end of 'likely/damaging'. Try something a little bit more calamitous than the simple and everyday financial loss of shoplifting and then see how you feel about safety checks.

[edit] I have heard some pretty shocking and underhand cases, but thankfully I have never found the malicious or inept use of C++ to be a factor in child abuse. 🙂

Surely the problem with all this type of thing is that the result will be that the only people still wanting to have contact with children will be the very people who should not have contact with them, as they will be the most motivated.

This sounds like the dangerous dogs act to me - bad legislation introduced too quickly as the result of a media panic about an overhyped single incident. If the Soham murders hadn't been in the summer silly season they'd not have received the disproportionate coverage they did.

Good points, porter. The same is true of the firearms controls after Hungerford. Kneejerk political reaction which failed totally to address the issue of illegal guns while at the same time penalising honest people. This seems to do the very same.

None of this legislation would have caught the family member (now dead) who abused 2 generations in my family. It's bad, knee-jerk legislation and it will need revising. I used to volunteer as a Scout Leader, fully warranted, this would make me feel uncomfortable as the system as proposed is so open to abuse to prevent people doing something they enjoy.
The problem may be more with the CPS stopping cases that have a fair chance of success and thus preventing a proper record of abuse. Justice is not cheap and attempting to save money by stopping cases is most likely the root cause of the current problems.