Who exactly is this going to help protect? 🙄
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8249020.stm ]Clicky[/url]
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.
You know with all the training I have done on child protection and CAF recently and TAC meetings and conferences I have attended I did not know this and no one ever pointed it out 🙄
You going to tell me most of it is done by men next?
What would you suggest we do as a society to protect children from parental/relative abuse? Not an easy question to answer as sadly most only get found out/discovered when their own children/relatives talk 😥
This legislation is actually designed to prevent those with a record gaining access to children.
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
[source unknown before anyone asks]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 - MemberSo, 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.
