Child protection screening. How important do you think it is? [Archive]

Adrian Kelland

23-02-2006, 13:58

I've been trough it, took a couple of weeks or so.

Personally I disagree with it, OK so it means that the person in question has not been caught doing anything wrong. That doesn't mean that they haven't or won't.

Also any new member to a club, if they want to instruct isn't going to be left just to get on with it are they? Surely they would be integrated into the new teaching environment?

And why just children anyway?

What’s next physiological testing in case they are about to go berserk?

Surely it’s a dangerous enough sport without having to worry about other people?

The club environment should mean that by default it is safe for all members, most people are known by most people and everyone is known by someone.

My 2p and opinion.
Beanie,

I think you wil find that most problems have occured within family and club environments. Be they scouts/swimming clubs or whatever.

Neither is it just about children, but the protection of the vulnerable. Could be an adult who is deaf. Or whatever.

Emmsie-May,

Have you asked your parents what they think? I suspect at least one of them is in your dive club, but it may not be the case. If so, what has persuaded them that you will be safe there. Or did they just assume it would be the case.

Unfortunately there are some real scumbags in the world, and they are not obvious. The Criminal Record Bureau checks might be enough to keep most of them out of our clubs. Of course they only check on the people known about, and have faults as has been seen recently within the teaching profession.

Adrian
(Not quite old fart)

John_C

23-02-2006, 14:04

I work for a local authority (I know someone has to:o ) and these types of check are common place for staff who have work with vunerable people (children, Older people, learning/physical disabilities). These checks are know as CRB checks, https://www.disclosures.co.uk/google_adwords/
but as has already been pointed out, they will only pick up those who have prior convictions etc. They wont weed out those who have yet to be caught. :mad:

I think the main concern here should be about ensuring that no one individual is ever allowed, or put into a situation where either they could abuse a trainee, or the trainee accuse them of abuse.

If you go down the route of using CRB checks, you will have to keep it up and the costs can soon mount up. Ultimately its your decision, but IMHO its better to remove the oportunity for ppl to abuse than rely on these checks, (as they are far from foolproof).

Adrian Kelland

23-02-2006, 14:17

If you go down the route of using CRB checks, you will have to keep it up and the costs can soon mount up. Ultimately its your decision, but IMHO its better to remove the oportunity for ppl to abuse than rely on these checks, (as they are far from foolproof).
John,

There are no costs (except maybe postage) for a branch. IIRC you v=have to work via HQ on this.

I can also see this kind of thing being required by grant bodies. As a representation of who resposible the club is in wider society.

Adrian

David Walker

23-02-2006, 14:29

In the end if the branch wants you to have one then might as well get on with it. If nothing else, it might give some kind of protection for the DO / chairman / whoever if one of their instructors does turn out to be "a bit dodgy" - at least they can show they've made every effort to vet their instructors. Can't see it ever becoming a problem, but if the checks are available and especially if there are young people in the branch, not much reason not to do one.

I've had a CRB check done, even though we don't teach any children - my logic was it was offered, didn't cost me anything, and meant that if I wanted to do anything in the future meant I had it there and ready (since they can take some time to come through).

David

Adrian Kelland

23-02-2006, 14:43

I've had a CRB check done, even though we don't teach any children - my logic was it was offered, didn't cost me anything, and meant that if I wanted to do anything in the future meant I had it there and ready (since they can take some time to come through).

David
They don't work like that David. Each organisation you might be part of has to get a separate CRB check. It's not something you can 'carry around'.

Adrian

Emmsie-May

23-02-2006, 14:59

In our club we have at least 6 people under the age of 18. We also take groups of children for try dives and with instructing them it can be very difficult especially for male divers ( aswell as female but not quite as bad).I'm not saying just children but all divers. The clips on the jacket are in very chest areaed places and so it can make it difficult for the instructors to be able to assist in the kitting up. In the last few years protection of the vunerable has become a big issue in every area of our lives.
Child protection for the vunerable is a very important issue but can be very hard to go about and i understand this.

Karim

23-02-2006, 15:16

Being an instructor in my university club we also have a high percentage of young female divers. When it comes to kitting up, i do sometimes tend to stay on the side of caution when it comes to kitting up and helping with chest straps/clips. And not simply be grabing at everything.

Generally if they need help they will ask for it or if i need to assist i will say "excuse me do you mind" etc..... That way i dont see how you can really end up in to much trouble unless you really are disturbed and actively looking for it! Aside from that, being a club enviroment it is rare for me to be alone with one female student on site anyway!

David Walker

23-02-2006, 15:32

They don't work like that David. Each organisation you might be part of has to get a separate CRB check. It's not something you can 'carry around'.

Oh, well mine doesn't work for diving then - nevermind.

Although, seems a bit silly that they will go through and do the same checks multiple times for the same person.

David

Ben Panter

23-02-2006, 15:45

No, it's perfectly reasonable. The CRB is only valid on the day it is produced, and the burden is on the organisation to update themselves, rather than the police to notify anyone who ever performed a CRB check on an individual that the person's status has changed.

Ben

Nigel Hewitt

23-02-2006, 16:13

Although, seems a bit silly that they will go through and do the same checks multiple times for the same person.When it costs £30 to a business/prospective employee it is.

(This is the figure quoted by my son who does this sort of stuff.)

Tony F

23-02-2006, 16:34

When it costs £30 to a business/prospective employee it is.

(This is the figure quoted by my son who does this sort of stuff.)

Where does this cost originate? I've only had one done for a charity I do some work for and that was free, do they only charge commercial operations? What's the deal for a Branch?

Adrian Kelland

23-02-2006, 16:36

Where does this cost originate? I've only had one done for a charity I do some work for and that was free, do they only charge commercial operations? What's the deal for a Branch?
Free through HQ.

Tony F

23-02-2006, 17:03

Free through HQ.

Ah, cheers.

Neil R

23-02-2006, 18:05

Hi all ,
good points raised ,
Right if your a volenteer and work with the vunerable it's free i think and i know someone at HQ is the chap who has to do all the paperwork side of things . Give HQ a ring they have loads of info on this .
If you get paid to work with children the CRB check cost £34 upon till 31 march 06 after that date it goes up to £36 .
The Club i belong to insist that if your an adult and going in the pool or Instructing the vunerable , then you must have a CRB Check done . Peace of mind and i don't know of anyone in our club that has objected to have this done .
All the parents are very suportive of this .

:)

Nigel Hewitt

23-02-2006, 18:46

Where does this cost originate?Free for us amateurs but if he applies for a job or to go on a bank of nursing staff somebody pays.

Stephen Davies

23-02-2006, 18:55

At a recent quarterly meeting my club amended its constitution to require officers and instructors to be CRB checked. Some members even proposed that evryone should be checked however, it was decided to limit the checks to only those mentioned above.

Instructors and officers (those who are likley to come into close regular contact with the vulnerable) being CRB checked should give some confidence to the carers of the vulnerable that the organisation takes the welfare of the vulnerable seriously.

The timescale for the checks is difficult to predict. I have just (today) received my enhanced disclosure required for work. This has arrived exactly fourteen days after submission. The length of time is really down to how many checks are being undertaken

The disclosure for my branch will be the 3rd in as many months and 4th in total

Stephen:)

Keith Lawrence

23-02-2006, 19:10

Free through HQ.Yup - free to you :) The BSAC is an acredited agency for CRB checks, I believe that there is a cost (levied by the CRB themselves IIRC) but we provide them free as a service to our members.

It is a very secure and confidential service, I think there are only two people within the BSAC authorised to see the actual checks (Mary and Mike C I think) and things have to be kept in safes and such. Contact HQ if you want more information.

HTH

Keith L

Iain Paul

23-02-2006, 20:22

Unfortunately this situation is a sign of the times we live in, and we are stuck with it whether we like it or not. I can only talk about Scotland, and I know this is slightly different to English situation, but would make the following general observations based on experience/understanding through work (as another local authority employee!) as well as club.

Disclosure process time is very variable depending on time of year and resulting elevated workload for Disclosure Scotland/Criminal Records (eg At start of academic year when new staff and parent volunteers are all being done by schools). It can be as little as 14 days where the employer is the body dealing with the Disclosure organisation but will obviously take rather longer when there are extra links in the chain ie instructor completes form and gives to club, club sends to BSAC, BSAC sends to Central Registered Body (they deal with volunteer group applications) and finally CRB pass to Disclosure Scotland who process the application in around 7-10 days!. There will be a similar delay in the return to the club although the individual will get their own copy much quicker. Those who have moved between addresses may find the time increases and this is particularly noticeable where moves have involved addresses in England across multiple Police force areas.

Enhanced disclosure (in Scotland) does not just involved criminal record checks but also Police “intelligence”

In Scotland it is actually illegal to “employ” (paid or otherwise) anyone who has been barred from working with children (and this can be regarded as 18 years). I understand that this is automatic with the enhanced disclosure and hence the need for this to be done - or risk a large fine!

As others have said situation applies to “vulnerable adults” with the interpretation of this potentially covering the pupil – instructor relationship.

Increasingly you may well find that your local authority pool will insist on clubs having a Child protection policy and “disclosure checks” for instructors and committee as part of the conditions of let for use of the facilities. As a club we have been proactive and done so before this becomes a requirement.

As others have said the disclosure is “employer” specific and I know of folk who have 5 or 6 through different bodies! I believe that this situation may be reconsidered with possible changes at some point in the future - but dont hold your breathe.

Although a “snapshot in time”, some employing organisations are actually looking at repeating the process for existing employees every few years and this may be something to consider in the future.

Iain

Chris Cherrington

24-02-2006, 08:54

I have to say reading this I was totally surprised. I thought this was LAW not optional. It is LAW for professional instructors.

In my own personal view I think that a club should protect itself and its members in this way (by having the checks) particularly as the BSAC gets them for free!!!

Clearly if an instructor does not instruct children it is not needed, which only leaves us really with what constitutes a "child". That's another whole can of worms... :D

Notwithstanding the value of the checks in detecting offenders I would have thought failure to take advantage of them would leave the club open to being sued if (god forbid) an incident were to occur and the checks had not taken place. Given they are free the "excuse" that a voluntary body couldn't afford it is nullified.

My nephew is going to be old enough next year. I would want his instructor to have been checked.

Chris

Keith Lawrence

24-02-2006, 09:08

I have to say reading this I was totally surprised. I thought this was LAW not optional. It is LAW for professional instructors.Is it really? Would you care to quote the appropriate statute Chris?

Keith L

Adrian Kelland

24-02-2006, 09:12

Is it really? Would you care to quote the appropriate statute Chris?

Keith L
I wouldn't be surprised if this is covered in the same way as teachers etc. So if you are working with children, you have to be checked?

Adrian

Keith Lawrence

24-02-2006, 09:26

I wouldn't be surprised if this is covered in the same way as teachers etc. So if you are working with children, you have to be checked?The Protection Of Children Act 1999 carries no such requirement that I am aware of, that is the primary legislation covering this area. The requirement of CRB checks is an interpretation of that law by various bodies, it is not primary legislation, therefore it is not "the Law".

You may also wish to check the CPSU on http://www.thecpsu.org.uk/ (actually the NSPCC) who deal with this on behalf of Sport England. An awful lot of myth surrounds this area, much the same as with the HSE where people claim that it is "the Law" but in actual fact it isn't. I could be wrong of course, in which case I look forward to somebody quoting the section of the actual statute in primary legislation that settles the matter once and for all.

Cheers

Keith L

Gareth

24-02-2006, 09:55

We've just had to change our constitution relating to CRB checks.

We use a public authority pool. Because of this we need to have a welfare policy in place (particularly relating to vunerable individuals).

After a lot of debate we have now added a requirement that all branch members must give permission for CRB checks.
This ensures that all branch members can have contact with any branch member.
It also ensures that no one individual or group is 'picked out' for CRB checks.

This still does not remove the requirement for thought & appropriate behaviour in the way we deal with individuals.
i.e. not being on your own with vunerable individuals, etc.

Part of the debate was over the fact that we are allowing more & more interferance/rules/goverment etc into our lives. No one had the any problem with the CRB checks, just the fact its more paperwork/cost (although free through the BSAC someone somewhere is paying), interferance etc in a personal pastime!

Gareth
St Ives SAC (0833)

Adrian Kelland

24-02-2006, 10:02

After a lot of debate we have now added a requirement that all branch members must give permission for CRB checks.
This ensures that all branch members can have contact with any branch member.
It also ensures that no one individual or group is 'picked out' for CRB checks.
If you've gone that far, what about parents of u18s? Thinking sharing on trips etc.

Adrian

Chris Cherrington

24-02-2006, 10:50

The Protection Of Children Act 1999 carries no such requirement that I am aware of, that is the primary legislation covering this area. The requirement of CRB checks is an interpretation of that law by various bodies, it is not primary legislation, therefore it is not "the Law".

Keith, you may be right, but I don't know anyone that teaches that doesn't go through the checks. It was an assumption on my part, sorry! I would assume that the insurance companies would require it even if the law doesn't. However, all these things are a bit of a grey area, like O2 cleaning which isn't law but without a sticker you don't get a fill....

Like I say its for free. Why not cover your ar.... (no that's a poor choice of phrase :D)

Chris

Tony F

24-02-2006, 10:51

Yup - free to you :) The BSAC is an acredited agency for CRB checks, I believe that there is a cost (levied by the CRB themselves IIRC) but we provide them free as a service to our members.

It is a very secure and confidential service, I think there are only two people within the BSAC authorised to see the actual checks (Mary and Mike C I think) and things have to be kept in safes and such. Contact HQ if you want more information.

HTH

Keith L

Okay. I carry out fairly frequent Try-Dives for my branch and quite often for youngsters, the branch has never mentioned CRB checks but to protect myself (frankly) I'd like to get one done.

Do I just have to contact HQ and ask for this to progress this or do I approach my branch first?

Edit: another question - does the check apply only to my branch or the BSAC (IE who's the originating body)?

David Walker

24-02-2006, 11:13

Given that the checks are out of date the second you get it, whats the recommendations for getting them updated / renewed?

And doesn't this end up the same kind of thing as O2 cleaning - well we know someone wasn't known to be "dodgy" (or your tank wasn't contaminated) 6 months ago... but that doesn't mean an awful lot now?

David

Stephen Davies

24-02-2006, 12:22

Keith, you may be right, but I don't know anyone that teaches that doesn't go through the checks. It was an assumption on my part, sorry! I would assume that the insurance companies would require it even if the law doesn't. However, all these things are a bit of a grey area, like O2 cleaning which isn't law but without a sticker you don't get a fill....

Like I say its for free. Why not cover your ar.... (no that's a poor choice of phrase :D)

Chris

Chris there is only a requirement for those entering teaching to be CRB checked. There is no requirement to check existing staff however, many LEAs are/have introduced a rolling programme of checks for existing staff.

Stephen

PhilB

24-02-2006, 13:15

[QUOTE=Tony F]Okay. I carry out fairly frequent Try-Dives for my branch and quite often for youngsters, the branch has never mentioned CRB checks but to protect myself (frankly) I'd like to get one done.

QUOTE]

Maybe I'm missing something here but how would offering to have your own criminal record checked contribute to your own protection?

Whilst I've got nothing against being checked I think the CRB checks are not a silver bullet. If dive clubs do offer a significant opportunity for perverts to operate then shouldn't we be carrying out other measures in addition to (or instead of) the CRB check? For example not allowing any adult to be alone with other people's children. Or asking parents or a nominated responsible adult to stay and supervise their children? Both of which would protect the instructor by preventing false accusations.

Phil

Adrian Kelland

24-02-2006, 13:24

Maybe I'm missing something here but how would offering to have your own criminal record checked contribute to your own protection?

Whilst I've got nothing against being checked I think the CRB checks are not a silver bullet. If dive clubs do offer a significant opportunity for perverts to operate then shouldn't we be carrying out other measures in addition to (or instead of) the CRB check? For example not allowing any adult to be alone with other people's children. Or asking parents or a nominated responsible adult to stay and supervise their children? Both of which would protect the instructor by preventing false accusations.

Phil
You are correct Phil, it is more that CRB checks. Much more a state of mind and working method. The CRB checks at best find someone out, but it's what YOU do day to day that matters more.

Adrian

Vic

24-02-2006, 13:41

Whilst I've got nothing against being checked

I do.

Before anyone decides that that means I've got something to hide - I don't. I'm squeaky-clean. But I have a right to privacy, and I object most strongly to people attempting to violate that right. I further object to anyone attempting to pressurise me to give up my rights.

I think the CRB checks are not a silver bullet. If dive clubs do offer a significant opportunity for perverts to operate then shouldn't we be carrying out other measures in addition to (or instead of) the CRB check? For example not allowing any adult to be alone with other people's children. Or asking parents or a nominated responsible adult to stay and supervise their children? Both of which would protect the instructor by preventing false accusations.

Precisely. The onus is upon us to ensure that we have an environment where abuse cannot happen - CRB checks don't provide that. They might weed out the recidivist paedophiles (although the SOR would almost certainly be a better tool for that), but they do nothing about people who haven't offended yet. Three times in my life, I've come across paedophiles - not one of them would have failed a CRB check.

Someone will be along in a moment to tell me that my refusal to submit to a CRB check will preclude me from teaching. See if you can work out how much that will hurt me...

Vic.

Adrian Kelland

24-02-2006, 13:51

Someone will be along in a moment to tell me that my refusal to submit to a CRB check will preclude me from teaching. See if you can work out how much that will hurt me...

Vic.
Aye, I can't say it would bother me much either :) However I don't see it as invading my privacy are there is no information there (about me) to be private.

Adrian

Nigel Hewitt

24-02-2006, 14:02

I don't see it as invading my privacy are there is no information there (about me) to be private.I do wonder if anybody is ever 'found out' by a CRB check.

I suspect it is like the 'virginity certificate' that is often called for in east african negotiations on a dowery. No girl ever fails. Non-virgins simply do not apply.

Chris Cherrington

24-02-2006, 14:07

..But I have a right to privacy, and I object most strongly to people attempting to violate that right. I further object to anyone attempting to pressurise me to give up my rights.
...

I agree you have that right and I support it wholeheartedly. I agree that the government pokes about into our privat lives far too much.

The issue in my mind is that those people that wish to teach youngsters should surely accept that this is part of the process of being able to do that. No different to those that wish to teach anyone have to undergo PIE and TIE.

There has been enough controversy about when people are "old" enough to dive that many instructors choose not to teach people below 18/16/14 etc.

It seems to me that not checking the instructors that wish to teach kids is not taking every possible precaution.

Thanks to the idiotic dribble that passes for journalism in papers like the Daily Mail everyone now it seems is suspect. I personally would not want to be a branch officer that had to stand up in court and "justify" why the checks were not made. No checks - teach over 18s only. Teach over 18s only - no checks. No privacy issue IMHO.

Chris

Andy Wade

24-02-2006, 14:11

Aye, I can't say it would bother me much either :) However I don't see it as invading my privacy are there is no information there (about me) to be private.

Adrian

I'm unhappy about the general way we are led to believe that the world out there is bad, and full of all manner of terrorists, paedophiles and other ne'er do wells.
I've seen quite a bit of this world through extensive travel, and IME this world has far more nice people out there in all sorts of countries and poor living conditions who wouldn't harm a fly, and successive governments here would have us believe otherwise in order to introduce jumped up laws to 'keep us from harm', when all they do is take away our own hard fought for freedom.
'Dubya' is a prime example of this panic mongering in order to get his way.
"Now watch this golf drive".....:(

Enforcing CRB checks for those wishing to teach minors may be seen as a necessary evil, and as a Father I tend to agree ..for the most part. But a refusal to take part should never be seen as admission of guilt.
Having a safe teaching environment is more important, both for the instructor and the trainee as both are equally vulnerable. The best way is to have instructors teach in pairs, with a teacher and a demonstrator in each class. Yes, of course I am aware that this isn't always possible, but there are lots of people wanting to learn to teach diving and their existing skills can be harnessed in this way.

Adrian Kelland

24-02-2006, 14:41

I'm unhappy about the general way we are led to believe that the world out there is bad, and full of all manner of terrorists, paedophiles and other ne'er do wells.
I've seen quite a bit of this world through extensive travel, and IME this world has far more nice people out there in all sorts of countries and poor living conditions who wouldn't harm a fly, and successive governments here would have us believe otherwise in order to introduce jumped up laws to 'keep us from harm', when all they do is take away our own hard fought for freedom.
'Dubya' is a prime example of this panic mongering in order to get his way.
"Now watch this golf drive".....:(

Enforcing CRB checks for those wishing to teach minors may be seen as a necessary evil, and as a Father I tend to agree ..for the most part. But a refusal to take part should never be seen as admission of guilt.
Having a safe teaching environment is more important, both for the instructor and the trainee as both are equally vulnerable. The best way is to have instructors teach in pairs, with a teacher and a demonstrator in each class. Yes, of course I am aware that this isn't always possible, but there are lots of people wanting to learn to teach diving and their existing skills can be harnessed in this way.
I would encourage this from the instructor mentoring POV too. Synergy (do I get buzzword bingo points here?)

Adrian

Chris Cherrington

24-02-2006, 15:07

I'm unhappy about the general way we are led to believe that the world out there is bad, and full of all manner of terrorists, paedophiles and other ne'er do wells.

Enforcing CRB checks for those wishing to teach minors may be seen as a necessary evil, and as a Father I tend to agree ..for the most part. But a refusal to take part should never be seen as admission of guilt.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Chris

rockdiver

24-02-2006, 15:26

[QUOTE=Nigel Hewitt]I do wonder if anybody is ever 'found out' by a CRB check./QUOTE]

I have read with interest most of the responses to the original question and it would seem that there are mixed feelings here. My own view is 'what's the problem?' It doesn't cost anything, it's relatively quick and it just could weed out potential problems. Only those with something to hide need worry.

I recently had to have a CRB before taking up a part-time teaching post in a Sixth Form College - not surprising you might think - but this was following a 29 year full-time career in secondary (11-16) schools. My immediate response was incredulity but it's no big deal.

In response to Nigel - yes they are! I know of examples from lists from local authorities but clearly cannot go into details on a public forum.

Paul

Vic

24-02-2006, 15:52

Only those with something to hide need worry.

Is that so?

Where do you live, then? House number and street, please.
How much do you earn?
How much have you got in the bank?
Who is the main beneficiary of your will? Where do they live?
How many people have you slept with? What gender were they? Are they still the same gender?
Would you like me to think up some more intrusive questions?

If you've not answered any of these questions, what have you got to hide?

Vic.

Vic

24-02-2006, 16:17

I don't see it as invading my privacy are there is no information there (about me) to be private.

It might not be invading your privacy - yet - but it still does you harm.

This sort of thing is sailing very close to what the CRB call "Enforced Subject Access", which is the effective removal of someone's rights to refuse a check on privacy grounds[1]. If we, the innocent, go along with this, then we end up with the situation where the assumption is made that only nefarious types could possibly have a reason for refusing, so a refusal equates to an admission of guilt.

That might not affect you now, but what happens when something that does affect you becomes the subject of scrutiny[2]? By failing to assert your rights now, you are weakening any putative rights you might wish to rely on in the future.

Vic.

[1] Even the CRB say that this is "undesirable"
[2] e.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/20/oyster_security_flaws/ or http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/30/dutch_biometric_passport_crack/

David Walker

24-02-2006, 16:39

Where do you live, then? House number and street, please.
How much do you earn?
How much have you got in the bank?
Who is the main beneficiary of your will? Where do they live?
How many people have you slept with? What gender were they? Are they still the same gender?
Would you like me to think up some more intrusive questions?

The CRB checks are really quite simple though - nothing like the information you've presented there. The one I filled in is called an "Enhanced Disclosure", and doesn't ask for much more than name, address, DOB, and asks for a couple of forms of identification to prove who you are. That's it. See http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/about/community/volunteers/volunteers/crb/guide/ for some info on what you need to provide.

The disclosure, when its returned, will for most people say "none recorded" for every category. Obviously if you do have any past convictions then they will show up, otherwise its just a form showing your name and address really.

David

Gareth

24-02-2006, 17:05

Andy Wade

24-02-2006, 17:14

This question of the right to refuse, making others assume you have something to hide I think is important.

In many countries the state, requires you to carry identity cards, you must give personal information to representatives of the state if requested.

The UK is very unique. The goverment is here to serve the people, as are its institutions. There is no requirement to carry any identifying papers (at least not at the moment). If you are asked for your details you have the right to refuse giving them, more importantly, you have a right to ask WHY they want your details. The servents of the state must justify their request! You are innocent until PROVEN guilty, not ASSUMED GUILTY, until you prove innocence!

We had identity papers during the war, as I understand it, at the end of the war it was the people who said "the war is over, we can destroy our papers, there is no longer a justification for the goverment to insist we have them"

I do get the feeling that very slowly society is changing, we are becoming servents of the state, rather than the state being the servant of the people!

Very deep for a Friday afternoon

Gareth

Not too deep for me.
There's only six hundred and odd of the b***ards in Parliament, couldn't we march there and string them all up, along with the Lawyers and the Insurance companies and the Bankers, before they take over the world. If they haven't already.
....and rest. Aaaaaaah :)
Deep enough for you?
Well it was just a thought.
With talk like this I wonder if the anti terrorist police have noted this post yet.....

Now for beer.
Hey Vic! I'm going to the Bradford Beer Festival Tonight!!! :D
I thought that might get your attention. :cool:

Vic

24-02-2006, 17:22

The CRB checks are really quite simple though - nothing like the information you've presented there.

No, you misunderstand.

doesn't ask for much more than name, address, DOB, and asks for a couple of forms of identification to prove who you are. That's it.

This is just to determine your identity - the intrusion into your privacy comes in terms of what the CRB send back, not what you send to the CRB.

The reason I posted such clearly intrusive questions is to highlight the point that there is often a good reason for people to keep their information to themselves; insisting on privacy is not synonymous with being guilty of anything, and this "only those with something to hide need worry" pap is a strawman punted about usually by people who want your data without good reason.

The one I filled in is called an "Enhanced Disclosure"

Enhanced Disclosure means that the information returned includes local Police records, in addition the what's on the PNC. If you're someone who's been stopped as often by the Police as I have[1], that's a serious issue.

The disclosure, when its returned, will for most people say "none recorded" for every category.

Perhaps - but that doesn't detract from my point. If we accept incursions into our privacy, sooner or later, someone will go too far[2]. If we've accepted the "only those with something to hide need worry" line, it will come back to bite us when there's something we don't want to disclose (for whatever reason).

Vic.

[1] The sum total of my convictions is two speeding tickets.
[2] It could be argued that this has already occurred...

Keith Lawrence

24-02-2006, 18:12

Only those with something to hide need worry.That is a totally false argument often put about by the child protection industry (yes, I use the word "industry" deliberately) when all else fails. You cannot prove a negative no matter how hard you try.

Keith L
(Personal opinion)

Vic

24-02-2006, 18:15

With talk like this I wonder if the anti terrorist police have noted this post yet.....

I shouldn't imagine that would change any opinion they might have formed about me. My views on civil liberties are already well-known[1]

Now for beer.

An excellent suggestion!

Hey Vic! I'm going to the Bradford Beer Festival Tonight!!! :D
I thought that might get your attention. :cool:

Lucky git. At least I'm going to get home before 8 tonight. Makes a nice change...

Vic.

[1] I wrote an article about email log retention at http://beer.org.uk/email/ - that caused quite a bit of traffic I didn't recognise...

Keith Lawrence

24-02-2006, 18:32

Precisely. The onus is upon us to ensure that we have an environment where abuse cannot happen - CRB checks don't provide that. Well said Vic, that is the crux of the matter. As Nigel has pointed out they are in themselves a pretty worthless peice of paper as nobody with a disqualifying conviction is going to apply. So they have some use in being a self selecting screening process but in all honesty the paper itself is useless.

If you want to know how to apply the principles in a branch see http://www.bsac.org/techserv/welfare/welfareintro.htm, there is some extreemly good advice and guidance in there. But please note there is no "law" as such, what we do is advise on best practice for branches who do accept vulnerable people. We do very strongly recommend that individuals who have significant contact with children (highlighted because those are the important words) do have CRB checks, but there is no actual requirement for all instructors, all branch members, or the committee to have such checks. That is a decision for the branches themselves to make taking into account their own circumstances. For example, some snorkelling branches require all branch members to undergo a CRB check as they deem it appropriate in their circumstances. Many branches only require the instructors who actually teach children to have them.

But the CRB checks are only a very small part of it, much more important is the procedures and practices within the branch. Note also that the BSAC policy applies to all vulnerable people, not just children, the CRB checks only apply to offenses against minors!

For branches wanting more information contact Mike Clack at HQ, he is our expert and has a wealth of experience to draw upon, he can guide you.

HTH

Keith L

Mike Halligan

24-02-2006, 18:38

ray

24-02-2006, 19:15

Hi.

When I joined the Samaritans we have to have very stringent checks, as we are dealing with extremely vulnerable children and adults.
I think there are varying degrees of checks dependent on what you intend to do, I do not think the BSAC one is very demanding

Nigel Hewitt

24-02-2006, 19:22

At least we are better off than the USA where an arrest that was not followed by a conviction can, so I hear, be reported in the press etc.

So I, with one murder 'helping the police with their enquiries' but no convictions, would look 'very interesting' and probably never get a job doing anything. (I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, was misidentified and two very nice detectives spent a day proving I didn't do it. "We knew it wasn't you after speaking to you for two minutes but we had to prove it" they said as they gave me a lift home.)

Edward

24-02-2006, 20:29

http://www.bsac.org/techserv/welfare/welfareintro.htm, But please note there is no "law" as such, what we do is advise on best practice for branches who do accept vulnerable people.

And lower down the page is advice for Scotland, where it is Law.

Edward

John Williams

25-02-2006, 00:34

They don't work like that David. Each organisation you might be part of has to get a separate CRB check. It's not something you can 'carry around'.

Adrian

Actually...they do!

However - because each organisation that requires them does not have a process for accepting CRB checks done by other organisations they usually insist that you have one done with them anyway!

The CRB would want you to accept exisating checks (less than 3 years old)...but at one stage I had 5 going through!
BSAC (I used to be the Welfare Officer - and was the one who set up the Welfare Policy!)
Scouts
Brownies
School Governor
Employer (new job)

To answer some of the other points
Yes! CRB checks only catch people who ALREADY have a record...but these are the ones most likely to re-offend!
They also target clubs who leave the door open!
You can't get CRB checks through the BSAC (or you couldn't when I set it up) without buying into the rest of the policy - which means that you have to have thought about the way you deal with kids and other vulnerable people and organised your training sessions in such a way that anyone who was abusing their positiuon of trust (or the people in their care) would stand out like a sore thumb! Not that it should ever happen...but by adopting some common sense guidelines you protect everyone in the club from accusations (usually false...but sometimes valid!)

Everyone focusses on the CRB check part of the welfare policy ...it is only a tiny part of it (and an optional extra at that!). It is a part that should not be relied upon instead of adopting the common sense guidance in the welfare policy (If that is what you want it for then a) you have not thought the whole issue through properly and b) I don't think the BSAC will/should provide it for you without the common sense bit coming first!

As to the cost...it IS free of charge to all volunteers...so if you WORK in a diving school - your employer will be charged!

For BSAC members - engaged in not-for-profit bran ch activities (what the BSAC is all about) - it will always be free to have a CRB check

And - yes! If you want a grant then you'll have to adopt a recognised policy (that probably includes CRB checks!)

Last time I heard there was also talk about National Governing Body status being called into question if there was not a national register of "coaches" (read "Instructors") that included CRB checks. However ...it was some time ago - and it was only talk!

More up-to-date info should be available from welfare@bsac.com

HTH

John

John Williams

25-02-2006, 00:43

Okay. I carry out fairly frequent Try-Dives for my branch and quite often for youngsters, the branch has never mentioned CRB checks but to protect myself (frankly) I'd like to get one done.

Do I just have to contact HQ and ask for this to progress this or do I approach my branch first?

Edit: another question - does the check apply only to my branch or the BSAC (IE who's the originating body)?

That's an interesting Question!

When the policy was set up...it was to respond to questions from branches "is there anything in this persons past that would prevent them from being a BSAC member?"

It was never set up for individuals who wanted to prove the point...though the question was raised (just as I was handing the project over to Mike Clack)

for a definitive anser an the current state of play you should ask Mike (Keith has his fingers in other pies!)

Mike can be reached on welfare@bsac.com

John
(former BSAC Welfare Officer)

John Williams

25-02-2006, 01:04

Is that so?

Where do you live, then? House number and street, please.
How much do you earn?
How much have you got in the bank?
Who is the main beneficiary of your will? Where do they live?
How many people have you slept with? What gender were they? Are they still the same gender?
Would you like me to think up some more intrusive questions?

If you've not answered any of these questions, what have you got to hide?

Vic.

Vic,

It is misinformation and stubborn ignorance of the facts like you demonstrate here that confuse folk!

If you have a CRB check done through the BSAC (or any other organisation) then two people see the results (and only two!)

You apply for the Statement of Disclosure for yourself (no-one else can do it for you or to you!)
So - naturally, you are sent the Statement.
Because you went through an Umbrella Organisation (you have to) then someone will countersign your application. They will get a copy of your Statement...and your statement will clearly identify (by name) the other person who sees the information and the organisation for which they act.

In the case of the BSAC the Countersignatory (Mary Tetly or Mike Clack) looks at the information ...and takes a decision about your suitability to remain a BSAC member (there is a VERY short list of things that, if they appear on your Statement of Disclosure, would result in your suitabiliuty being questioned). If there is something the Statement is kept in a safe for not longer than 6 months ...to allow you time to challenge the information with the CRB (mistakes are always a possibility).
If there is nothing on your statement then the serial number and date of the check are recorded in a secure database (kept offline and in the safe) and the copy Statement is destroyed immediately ...what's the point of storing it if it has no consequence - and you cannot store it for longer than 6 months anyway!

The application form removed the questions about banks details ages ago..and no-one ever asked what you earned or how much money you had saved. Your level of promiscuity or your sexuality are totally irrelevant to the issue of Welfare (and to even mention them highlights your own prejudices!)

Please get your facts straight before setting off on a crusade to discredit something!

Oh....and about your rights!
The right not to be abused (and to have everything done to try to prevent the abuse of children and other vulnerable people) comes several points higher up the list than your right to privacy (even if that right were being threatened in any way!)

So...the question of rights comes out in favour of those being protected by a CRB check rather than those being threatened by one! (especially since those genuinely threatened by a CRB check are the ones with something to fear from them!)

HTH

John

John Williams

25-02-2006, 01:19

That is a totally false argument often put about by the child protection industry (yes, I use the word "industry" deliberately) when all else fails. You cannot prove a negative no matter how hard you try.

Keith L
(Personal opinion)

Keith,

We've had this debate ad infinitum (and will continue to disagree:) )

How can it be an "industry" when there is no profit?

there are MANY misguided individuals driving the policies and procedures beyond common sense out there - but they are doing so in the honest beleif that they are serving the common good!

It is incumbent upon people like you and me to temper their arguments with common sense...to prevent them from going too far!

Yes! There are those out there who do set themselves up in business to advise organisations how best to cope with developing legislation...but they do not make the legislation! They just stay up-to-date and sell their expertise to people who (for whatever reason) find it more convenient to seek advice rather than understand it for themselves!
(a bit like the situation that the BSAC would find itself in when seeking IT advice if you were not around!)

CRB checks are a tiny part of a rounded and balanced Welfare Policy...and a relatively unimportant and ineffective part in most cases! However - in some cases they highlight past offenders (those most likely to offend in the future) and help us to eliminate them from positions of influence in our club.

How can that be wrong?

Relying on a CRB check to absolve you of common sense arrangements (like not ending up alone in a changing room with someone else's child) is ludicrous...I think we'd all agree on that one!

But - in it's place the CRB check has a valid role to play!

John

(I only reply to your post to present a balancing opinion...we may both be wrong...who knows?)

Keith Lawrence

25-02-2006, 09:23

Last time I heard there was also talk about National Governing Body status being called into question if there was not a national register of "coaches" (read "Instructors") that included CRB checks. However ...it was some time ago - and it was only talk!I heard that one as well John, it was typical of the misinformation that was put about by those trying to force inappropriate measures onto people. When I challenged this "fact" it of course was not backed up by any policy, documentation, procedures, meeting minutes... or indeed anything at all!

As you say, it was only talk. A complete myth.

HTH

Keith L

Andy Wade

25-02-2006, 11:06

Keith,

We've had this debate ad infinitum (and will continue to disagree:) )

How can it be an "industry" when there is no profit?

there are MANY misguided individuals driving the policies and procedures beyond common sense out there - but they are doing so in the honest beleif that they are serving the common good!

It is incumbent upon people like you and me to temper their arguments with common sense...to prevent them from going too far!

Yes! There are those out there who do set themselves up in business to advise organisations how best to cope with developing legislation...but they do not make the legislation! They just stay up-to-date and sell their expertise to people who (for whatever reason) find it more convenient to seek advice rather than understand it for themselves!
(a bit like the situation that the BSAC would find itself in when seeking IT advice if you were not around!)

CRB checks are a tiny part of a rounded and balanced Welfare Policy...and a relatively unimportant and ineffective part in most cases! However - in some cases they highlight past offenders (those most likely to offend in the future) and help us to eliminate them from positions of influence in our club.

How can that be wrong?

Relying on a CRB check to absolve you of common sense arrangements (like not ending up alone in a changing room with someone else's child) is ludicrous...I think we'd all agree on that one!

But - in it's place the CRB check has a valid role to play!

John

(I only reply to your post to present a balancing opinion...we may both be wrong...who knows?)

Hi John.
I think you've hit at least part of the problem on the nail.
For myself I worry (like a lot of people) that there's a knee jerk reaction to a perceived threat.
Are there really lots of paedophiles living down every street in every town?
I doubt it. Although one paedophile on my street would be enough to worry me, especially as I wouldn't have a clue about it. I object to this policy of misinformation from Government and press that there are lots of them out there and that we need to be vigilant.
Reading your posts over the years I think I have a fair-ish measure of your character, and as a father yourself I'm sure you'll be doing what I will be doing with my children and properly parenting them. By that I mean accompanying them on their endeavours through life as a parent should do, and guiding them with your own knowledge and experience to ensure their safety (without going over the top and wrapping them in cotton wool, or being a 'pushy parent'). Risk is a welcome part of life, but we can do lots to minimise it enough to make sure they aren't really in any danger, just enough to make them learn and enjoy 'pushing the envelope' That for me is why I entered diving (although I do play it pretty safe).
Part of what worries me with this CRB check thing is the idea that a whole branch should CRB check every member just to allow children to enter the branch, which by itself should be enough to protect them from harm of this type. It assumes that there is a potential paedophile in the branch, most of whom would be well known to me having dived with them for several years.
Frankly I wouldn't want to put my branch members through the CRB check just so my children could join the branch as I see it as an unnecessarily intrusive measure.
The only person who needs to be 'checked' is the one coming into physical contact with my child, and for the most part, when it happens it would be myself or my friends who I know and dive with anyway. I will do that check myself by getting to know this person before I ask them to place themselves in a in a situation where they might be vulnerable to accusation.
CRB checks may be a necessary evil at the moment but we shouldn't see them as a quick fix, because they're not. And they're definitely not a substitute for proper parenting.
Sending them to a dive school is different of course. But then I'm paying for that priviledge, and in that case I see a CRB check as mostly a protection for the dive school instructor rather than for my children.

Keith Lawrence

25-02-2006, 17:13

For myself I worry (like a lot of people) that there's a knee jerk reaction to a perceived threat.That is exactly the problem with this topic Andy, it raises knee jerk reactions whipped up by gutter press hysteria.
Are there really lots of paedophiles living down every street in every town? I doubt it.Statistically there are not. To cut through some of the hysteria let's have some facts -

There are some 12,000 people in the UK on the Sexual Offenders Register (i.e. those who would be picked up by a CRB check).
Taking the population of the UK at 60m...
...there is a 1 in 5,000 (0.02%) chance of somebody being on that register
Taking a mid figure of 35,000 BSAC members...
...statistically there may be 7 people in the entire BSAC who are on the sexual offenders register.A convicted pervert in every branch? I don't think so! And before the zeolots go rushing around in a witch hunt trying to get rid of those people who "must" be a risk please consider the following hypothetical situation -

A 25 year old qualified diver presents themselves and their 24 year old wife at your branch. Nice couple, been married 8 years, keen divers. But 9 years ago, the male, then aged 16, was convicted of having sex with a minor. That minor was a 15 year old girl, the lady who is now his wife. Would you want such people as a member of your branch? Well strictly speaking you can't - because the man will be on the Sexual Offenders Register and we do not want these "perverts" as members of our club do we!
Part of what worries me with this CRB check thing is the idea that a whole branch should CRB check every member just to allow children to enter the branch, which by itself should be enough to protect them from harm of this type.In some branches, for example snorelling branches with a lot of children, a CRB check on all branch members may be deemed a wise precaution, that is up to the branch to decide. But the concept of "check everybody, just because there might be a child around" is fatally flawed, inappropriate and not required, although the child protection lobby did try to push us in that direction as well. Do I need a CRB clearance to shop in Tescos?
The only person who needs to be 'checked' is the one coming into physical contact with my child, and for the most part, when it happens it would be myself or my friends who I know and dive with anyway.Correct Andy, that is what the BSAC policy recommends. Anybody with significant contact with children (that phrase again, it's the phase used by Sport England actually!) should ideally undergo a CRB check.
CRB checks may be a necessary evil at the moment but we shouldn't see them as a quick fix, because they're not.EXACTLY! That is the point that I keep trying to make. Any branch committee who think "check everybody, that will do" is completely misunderstanding the potential problems and the simple management techniques that can be used to overcome them. If the guidance in the BSAC WoV policy is actually followed a CRB check become irreleveant - because even in the very unlikely event of there being some kind of child molesting pervert around your policies and procedures would prevent them from being in a situation where they could do any harm anyway!

CRB checks are NOT the answer, they are not even a quick fix, as soon as people realise that we may even start getting somewhere :rolleyes:

Keith L

Stephen Davies

25-02-2006, 20:41

I do wonder if anybody is ever 'found out' by a CRB check.

I suspect it is like the 'virginity certificate' that is often called for in east african negotiations on a dowery. No girl ever fails. Non-virgins simply do not apply.

The whole point of the CRB check is to prevent those who could be a threat to the vulnerable from being in a position of trust.

When applying for a teaching post any criminal convictions have to be declared. For those wishing to teach these convictions are never spent.

Failure to declare a conviction on the application form, that is subsequently discovered in the CRB check is likely to result in dismissal and may lead to legal action for making a false statement.

Stephen

Alan Ewart

25-02-2006, 21:54

Failure to declare a conviction on the application form, that is subsequently discovered in the CRB check is likely to result in dismissal and may lead to legal action for making a false statement.

Stephen

Except when the Home Office ministers say its ok of course (allegedly)!!

John Williams

25-02-2006, 23:14

[QUOTE][Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Wade
CRB checks may be a necessary evil at the moment but we shouldn't see them as a quick fix, because they're not.

EXACTLY! That is the point that I keep trying to make. Any branch committee who think "check everybody, that will do" is completely misunderstanding the potential problems and the simple management techniques that can be used to overcome them. If the guidance in the BSAC WoV policy is actually followed a CRB check become irreleveant - because even in the very unlikely event of there being some kind of child molesting pervert around your policies and procedures would prevent them from being in a situation where they could do any harm anyway!

CRB checks are NOT the answer, they are not even a quick fix, as soon as people realise that we may even start getting somewhere /QUOTE]

But Keith....

That means that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet!

No-one ever said that CRB checks were the complete, or only, or a stand-alone answer to anything (except for some very stupid Social Workers that I could name!)

CRB checks are a very small and relatively insignificant part of any reasonable policy to protect vulnerable people (note that I specifically do not include only children!)

Indeed many Instructors, Council Members, Branch Committee members are "vulnerable" - simply because they stick their head above the parapet!

Adopting common sense behavioural gudelines (such as those outlined in the BSAC Welfare Policy) is FAR more important in protecting everyone from harm (whether that harm be real or perceived, tangible or fictitious).

CRB checks should be likened to the dots on the "i's" ans ther crosses on the "t's"...the final flourish...but failing to add them detracts very little (if at all) from the real "meat" of the policy!

I would go so far as to say that a CRB check is simply a mechanism by which the rest of the policy can be implemented...but without the policy being there and robustly followed the CRB check is both pointless and meaningless!

As Andy says....a peice of paper is no subsitute for proper "parenting"

John

Keith Lawrence

25-02-2006, 23:48

But Keith....That means that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet!Indeed we are John, but we are not quite in tune yet :) Those with a long memory may recall that I have always been fundamentally against pointless and draconian measures such as silly declarations and the "check everybody for the sake of it" policies that do nothing other than give a false sense of security and upset those of us who do feel that such pointless intrusions are an infringement of civil liberties. I disagree completely with your earlier statement to Vic -
The right not to be abused (and to have everything done to try to prevent the abuse of children and other vulnerable people) comes several points higher up the list than your right to privacyI have always and will always be against this "it's to protect the children, what have you got to hide?" approach to inflicting worthless checks and intrusions onto those who simply do not need it. Just what would be the point in running a CRB check on an instructor in a branch who has no wish to teach children just because there may be a kid or two running around?

That is why I feel that the current BSAC policy is correct, declarations and checks should be carried out on those with significant contact with children (those words again!) but are not actually required for every instructor or every branch member unless there are specific circumstances that may warrent it.

You also make the very good point that the BSAC policy covers vulnerable people, not just children. CRB checks are completely useless in the case of adult vulnerable people, only your branch policies and procedures can help you there. Where I hope that we are in agreement John is in our support of the BSAC policy and the guidelines and advice therein. Although I have always been opposed to pointless and draconian measure the BSAC policy is neither and I fully support and endorse it, as does every member of BSAC Council.

Kind Regards

Keith L

n.b. Just for the record... I do have CRB clearance, but nobody forced me into it, nobody told me that I "had to". It was a purely personal decision, I took the view that it was appropriate in my case as unfortunately (on very rare occasions) I do have to deal with such issues as a BSAC Council member.

Paul Renucci

26-02-2006, 11:03

Aye, I can't say it would bother me much either :) However I don't see it as invading my privacy are there is no information there (about me) to be private.

Adrian

Is there such a thing as private anymore? - go to Google and type in any name - e.g. Adrian Kelland :D ? and see how many pages there are on any one of us :(
That alone should hopefully act as a deterent??

Mike Halligan

26-02-2006, 11:24

You also make the very good point that the BSAC policy covers vulnerable people, not just children. CRB checks are completely useless in the case of adult vulnerable people, only your branch policies and procedures can help you there. Where I hope that we are in agreement John is in our support of the BSAC policy and the guidelines and advice therein. Although I have always been opposed to pointless and draconian measure the BSAC policy is neither and I fully support and endorse it, as does every member of BSAC Council.

Too right, Keith. Another personal opinion from me, not policy or process, since each belongs to others.

The availability of CRB checks works as political window-dressing for consumption by those not too much concerned. Of itself, it seems to do little else to protect those at risk, of either abuse or malicious allegation. Offenders who have been caught, successfully prosecuted and sentenced will likely be deterred from applying where it is known that such checks are in place. Beyond that, zilch IMHO.

The CRB-check system is claimed to work where it deters. Yet, that could as easily be because its use is symptomatic of a club's dedication to ensuring the safety of all its members at all times. That same dedication would have the desired effect without CRB checks. Elsewhere, CRB checks may be used to grant (in the eyes of the none-too-caring observer) a spurious credibility to those using them, who may claim they are pure as the driven snow yet in fact don't much care. Such is the danger in a check-off system.

Like the MOT test, it says no more than "When we looked we found nowt". CRB clearance of a group within a branch, or even the whole branch, is no more than one suggestion of branch commitment to (and culture of) equity, care and support. Several more are needed to provide a reliable indicator.

Therefore, as a personal opinion in answer to the OP, "Not much".

Regards,
Mike

David Walker

26-02-2006, 23:30

I think you're all missing by far the most important point... its nice to get a letter through a month later saying:

"Dear David
We've investigated you and found that you are not a criminal!
Congratulations.
From everyone at the CRB!"

Mine's framed and on the wall :rolleyes: :D ;)

David

John Williams

26-02-2006, 23:46

Is there such a thing as private anymore? - go to Google and type in any name - e.g. Adrian Kelland :D ? and see how many pages there are on any one of us :(
That alone should hopefully act as a deterent??

Worldwide web...156 million returns for "John Williams"

UK only ...11.5 million returns

I reckon that effectively makes my personal info through Google fairly well hidden!

Now add "+BSAC" to the search and you get just over 1,000 entries ...most of which relate directly to me, my address or my opinions

That is a little more "personal"...but all of that info was put there with my consent (because I have nothing to hide)

John

Dave

27-02-2006, 00:00

Andy Wade

27-02-2006, 00:11

Worldwide web...156 million returns for "John Williams"

UK only ...11.5 million returns

I reckon that effectively makes my personal info through Google fairly well hidden!

Now add "+BSAC" to the search and you get just over 1,000 entries ...most of which relate directly to me, my address or my opinions

That is a little more "personal"...but all of that info was put there with my consent (because I have nothing to hide)

John

When they said you were common, they didn't mean that common did they? :D

John Williams

27-02-2006, 00:25

I would refuse to allow a CRB to be performed on me by a branch because of privacy issues. if they would not be prepared to accept that my card that proves that I have no recorded convictions in 14 countries and a national security clearance as sufficent to my character, then I have no interest in being associated with them

Dave

What "card" would that be Dave?
Unless it is a CRB "Statement of Disclosure" card...then it is fairly irrelevant isn't it?

If your branch decided - as a group - that (after following the sensible advice contained in the Welfare Policy) they wished to perform CRB checks upon some/all of their members to ensure that there was no-one amongst them who belonged in the very small minority of people most likely to offend against the Welfare policy - then surely you would either go along with their combined wishes ...or, as you say, leave to join another club where the membership shared similar views to your own.

I really cannot see a problem here!

I have no objection to having a CRB check done (the privacy issue is irrelevant as no-one you know will ever see the content of the report that is generated ...unless you show them your copy!). No branch can get a copy of your Statement (and no branch would be accepted as a body that could!)

If I felt the "welfare" policy of a branch was restricting my activity in any way that was not positive (for both me and for those in my care) then I'd be the first to scream and shout...and if I could not change the situation I would remove myself from it.

However ...I would carefully consider my own reaction - and wonder if I was acting in my own best interests in reacting to such a situation in a way that restricted me in a far greater way than the situation itself ever did or could.

But then...I am one of those people who think that a State sponsored identity card would considerably enhance my life because it would enable me to identify myself securely and would prevent others from masquerading as me. I would not see it as "Big Brother" watching me...I would see it as a personal service provided to me by the state.

Similarly a robust welfare policy would enable me to interact with vulnerable people in a safe way - one that protected them from harm...and me from false accusations.

If a small part of that policy were a check to ensure that I was not one of the very small minority who is most likley to perpetrate such harm (and provided that no statement was made about all the other things that may/may not appear on my record) then ...so what?

Please help me to understand your comments ...and your strong feelings on this issue. I just don't think that the issue of CRB checks is that important - either within a robust Welfare Policy or as an "invasion of provacy".

the info clearly exists/does not exist... on a database somewhere - so using that database to prove that you have nothing to hide (without ever revealing anything to those you know) is good isn't it?:confused:

John

Dave

27-02-2006, 08:44

What "card" would that be Dave?
Unless it is a CRB "Statement of Disclosure" card...then it is fairly irrelevant isn't it?

It's a government issued ID which is used to provide visa free and expedited access to a number of countries. In order to get one, clearances have to be done in each of the countries providing access , part of which involves criminal checks

Hmm.... you don't think that NSCs actually perhaps do a more in depth check on someone anyway than just a police check?

I have no objection to having a CRB check done (the privacy issue is irrelevant as no-one you know will ever see the content of the report that is generated ...unless you show them your copy!). No branch can get a copy of your Statement (and no branch would be accepted as a body that could!)

Irrelevent on whether they can see it. If I am doing something for free I am not going to go through the accusation and prove that I am innocent of crimes. Heard of the presumption of innocence? Anyway, iirc from a previous post there are 2 people at HQ who do have access to the report .

Please help me to understand your comments ...and your strong feelings on this issue. I just don't think that the issue of CRB checks is that important - either within a robust Welfare Policy or as an "invasion of provacy".

the info clearly exists/does not exist... on a database somewhere - so using that database to prove that you have nothing to hide (without ever revealing anything to those you know) is good isn't it?:confused:

And that is a risible comment, on par with "why should you be worried if you have nothing to hide" . My privacy is important to me and if a branch was not prepared to believe that I was innocent without having done one of these, then not somewhere I would want to be especially given that there is no legal requirement for such a check

I am also completely against the idea of a National ID too

Dave

John Williams

27-02-2006, 11:08

Anyway, iirc from a previous post there are 2 people at HQ who do have access to the report .

Dave

I'm afraid that that is only half correct!

There are two people at HQ who are authorised to countersign your application for a CRB check. Therefore one of two people may review the copy of your Statement of Disclosure ...but ONLY the one who countersigned it on behalf of the BSAC may view it.

The one who did NOT sign it has no access to it at all!

It is FAR easier to have a simple system of review than it is to have a long list of acceptable alternatives. If you have had a far more stringent screen completed to get your card ...what would be the problem with having another one done for the BSAC (or the Scouts, or whoever!)?

HTH

John

Vic

27-02-2006, 11:59

It is misinformation and stubborn ignorance of the facts like you demonstrate here that confuse folk!

There was no misinformation in my post. It was a set of questions. My ignorance is merely that I don't know the answer to those questions - and I firmly hope I shall remain ignorant of those answers.

If you have a CRB check done through the BSAC (or any other organisation) then two people see the results (and only two!)

And thow exactly does that relate to my post?

I said nothing about what the CRB check might or might not contain.

I was merely addressing the fallacy of the statement that "only those wqith something to hide need worry". I was demonstrating that there are frequently good reasons for withholding private information that do not imply any sort of wrongdoing.

Your taking my post entirely out of context seems to be the only source of confusion here. You haven't exactly done yourself any favours...

In the case of the BSAC the Countersignatory (Mary Tetly or Mike Clack) looks at the information ...and takes a decision about your suitability to remain a BSAC member (there is a VERY short list of things that, if they appear on your Statement of Disclosure, would result in your suitabiliuty being questioned).

So - the Countersignatory sees information about me that we all acknowledge to be irrelevant to whether or not I am considered "suitable". That constitutes an unwarranted intrusion into my privacy, then.

The application form removed the questions about banks details ages ago..and no-one ever asked what you earned or how much money you had saved. Your level of promiscuity or your sexuality are totally irrelevant to the issue of Welfare (and to even mention them highlights your own prejudices!)

No, John, it merely illustrates your inability to follow a thread.

The questions I posed were intentionally intrusive. I was demonstrating that there are often reasons to be defensive in the face of intrusion that do not imply any sort of guilt. You'll notice that the OP - who claimed that "only those with something to hide need worry" - has not responded.

Please get your facts straight before setting off on a crusade to discredit something!

Likewise. I have made no factual claims about what the CRB check contains here. You have made claims - and incorrect claims at that - about what I was saying. The record is there, unedited. Go back and work out for yourslef just how badly wrong you've got it.

Oh....and about your rights!
The right not to be abused (and to have everything done to try to prevent the abuse of children and other vulnerable people) comes several points higher up the list than your right to privacy (even if that right were being threatened in any way!)

That's your view, and it's not mine.

Nevertheless, the decision to disclose is mine, and not yours. Any attempt to push me into disclosure must be considered "Enforced Subject Access", and should be treated accordingly. Were BSAC an employer, this would actually be illegal under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974; because of BSAC's status, I'm not sure whether it is classified in the same way (I'm sure SWK will be along shortly to put us straight on that). Nevertheless, the CRB clearly states that Enforced Subject Access is "undesireable", so I'm sure they'd take a suitably dim view if it were to start happening.

So...the question of rights comes out in favour of those being protected by a CRB check rather than those being threatened by one!

No it doesn't.

You might believe disclosure to be warranted - but you don't get to make that decision on my behalf. These are my rights, and it is my decision whether or not to waive them.

(especially since those genuinely threatened by a CRB check are the ones with something to fear from them!)

Rubbish. Utter rubbish.

If you think that an invasion of your privacy is unimportant, then I eagerly await your answers to the questions I posed in an earlier post.

Vic.

Vic

27-02-2006, 12:09

I really cannot see a problem here!

That much is obvious.

And it leaves us with one of two scenarios :-

- You are omniscient, and we are just wrong
- You are not attempting to understand the legitimate concerns of those of us who object.

But then...I am one of those people who think that a State sponsored identity card would considerably enhance my life because it would enable me to identify myself securely and would prevent others from masquerading as me.

And you'd be completely wrong.

Take a look at the Dutch example. They introduced a card with a short-range, no-contact interface (exactly as is suggested for the proposed UK card).

It was skimmed and duplicated at a distance of 10m.

This isn't conjecture, this isn't laboratory-conditions possibility. This happened. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/30/dutch_biometric_passport_crack/ .

Relying on technology invariably means that people stop thinking for themselves - if an ID card proves your ID, that's gospel isn't it? That means that a failure of the technology - and all technology is eventually subverted - causes huge abuses to occur simply because humans have become reliant on it.

Vic.

ray

27-02-2006, 12:58

Hmmmm.
An awful lot of huffing and puffing, still boils down to would you want anybody to lust after or interfere with your child or other peoples children, if not why object or are you so insecure?.

Dave

27-02-2006, 19:50

Hmmmm.
An awful lot of huffing and puffing, still boils down to would you want anybody to lust after or interfere with your child or other peoples children, if not why object or are you so insecure?.

That is not the question at all; it is the assumption of guilt without proof of innocence and intruding into my privacy to get this proof . When being done in relation to something I do not get paid for, then that is unacceptable to me.

Dave

Keith Lawrence

27-02-2006, 20:45

An awful lot of huffing and puffing, still boils down to would you want anybody to lust after or interfere with your child or other peoples children, if not why object or are you so insecure?.I object because you make the gross assumption that everybody is a raving pervert unless they somehow prove otherwise, the very proof that you seek is fundamentally flawed.

What have I got to prove to you Ray - and why should I?

Keith L (playing devils advocate :))

Emmsie-May

27-02-2006, 20:47

I can see i have really started something off. Not bad for my first thread.:)
emmsie-may x

Andy Wade

27-02-2006, 22:25

I can see i have really started something off. Not bad for my first thread.:)
emmsie-may x

Indeed. Sometimes the simplest of questions can provoke the most complex answers.
Have a greenie on me. :D

ray

27-02-2006, 22:37

Hmmm.
It seems some people have taken my comment personally, when it was aimed at nobody and was a general comment.

Keith Lawrence

27-02-2006, 23:27

I can see i have really started something off. Not bad for my first thread.:) emmsie-may xI say! 80 replies (the most ever on this particular forum) and nearly 1,500 views. You can come again :rolleyes:

K

John Williams

28-02-2006, 01:06

I can see i have really started something off. Not bad for my first thread.:)
emmsie-may x

This particular topic is always an emotive one!

People really get on their high horse about invasions of privacy and violation of rights.

I guess it all boils down to the fact that you really cannot sit on this particular fence - you either don't see a problem - or you do!

I don't...and I really struggle to understand the views of those that do (because they are at such divergence from my own ...on a VERY small, and optional, part of a responsible welfare strategy)

It would bother me not in the slightest if people opted (as a branch) NOT to utilise the services of the CRB. What does bother me is the individual who insists that regardless of decisions taken by friends, associateds, family etc that they would simply dump all those relationships in favour of a moot point!

The info exists...anyone who has a legitimate reason for seeking it can get it!

it is NOT private information...it belongs to the people (and if people wish to make use of it...that's what it exists for!)

Of course everyone has a right to refuse to apply for a CRB check...just as any BSAC Branch which properly adopts the BSAC Welfare Policy and decides that you cannot be a member without also applying for a CRB check is entitled to restrict it's membership in this way.

If you don't like the policy within a branch...don't join it!

If you don't like playing golf...don't join a golf club!
(what's the difference?)

Anyway...welcome - and well done for stirring this particular pot again!
(gives us all another go at understanding how others perceive the "problem"

John

Dave

28-02-2006, 03:21

It would bother me not in the slightest if people opted (as a branch) NOT to utilise the services of the CRB. What does bother me is the individual who insists that regardless of decisions taken by friends, associateds, family etc that they would simply dump all those relationships in favour of a moot point!

Someone who was actually a friend wouldn't accuse me of being a danger to children and require me to try and prove otherwise

The info exists...anyone who has a legitimate reason for seeking it can get it!

it is NOT private information...it belongs to the people (and if people wish to make use of it...that's what it exists for!)

It is private information; if it was public information there would be no need for any agreement in order to access it

Of course everyone has a right to refuse to apply for a CRB check...just as any BSAC Branch which properly adopts the BSAC Welfare Policy and decides that you cannot be a member without also applying for a CRB check is entitled to restrict it's membership in this way.

And where does it say that a Branch has to require these in order to meet in with policy

If you don't like playing golf...don't join a golf club!
(what's the difference?)

A huge difference. Last I checked, golf clubs do not go in for making people prove that they are not criminals in order to join

This is all part of the onion layer approach to removing ones liberties; make out each change is small and use ludicrous justifications like "well, no one with anything to hide would object" and slice by slice individual liberties are eroded

Dave

Keith Lawrence

28-02-2006, 08:15

This particular topic is always an emotive one! People really get on their high horse about invasions of privacy and violation of rights.Just as people get on their high horse and demand pointless checks on everybody.
...on a VERY small, and optional, part of a responsible welfare strategy)You're right there, but I would like to stress that the key word you have used is OPTIONAL.

Of course everyone has a right to refuse to apply for a CRB check...just as any BSAC Branch which properly adopts the BSAC Welfare Policy and decides that you cannot be a member without also applying for a CRB check is entitled to restrict it's membership in this way.
Here I feel that you are grossly misrepresenting the actual situation John. You are equating "properly adopts" with "you cannot be a member without also applying for a CRB check", once again you are implying that everybody in a branch needs checking. Once again I feel that I must point out to you that is NOT the case.

I want people to be quite clear on this -

The BSAC recommends that CRB checks be carried out on those with significant contact with children.That does NOT mean every instructor, it does NOT mean every instructor in a branch, it does NOT mean every member in a branch. What it means is what it says, those with significant contact with children. In my view the excuse that "there might be some kids wandering about" is not a good enough reason to demand checks on everybody. There may be people within a branch who do not wish to teach or supervise children, their views and privacy should be respected. In the vast majority of cases* I feel that it would be wrong to demand checks on these people.

What the BSAC policy is about is appropriate checks in appropriate places and appropriate procedures and practices to back up those checks, it it not about simply checking everybody and then thinking that you've done a good job. If there is an instructor who wishes to teach children, somebody designated as the child minder in a family branch, the welfare officer of a branch... these are the people who I feel should undergo a CRB check, if I was prepared to take on such a role then I would feel it right and proper that I had a CRB check done on me. But just because somebody else wants to bring a minor into a branch and teach them is not a good enough reason to demand a CRB check on me, I would refuse.

* There are special cases, such as some snorkelling branches or a youth branch, where the primary purpose of the branch is the teaching and diving activities of minors. In such special circumstances it may be appropriate for the members of that branch to decide that a CRB check is required on every branch member. That is a decision for those branches to make.

But to wrap this one up I just want people to be clear on what is required under what circumstances. The BSAC policy recommends CRB checks on those with significant contact with children. Anybody who tries to tell you that means every instructor or every member in an ordinary branch that just so happens to have some minors as members is quite simply WRONG and they are misleading you as to the purpose and nature of the BSAC WoV policy.

HTH

Keith L

Andy Wade

28-02-2006, 08:21

Someone who was actually a friend wouldn't accuse me of being a danger to children and require me to try and prove otherwise

It is private information; if it was public information there would be no need for any agreement in order to access it

And where does it say that a Branch has to require these in order to meet in with policy

A huge difference. Last I checked, golf clubs do not go in for making people prove that they are not criminals in order to join

This is all part of the onion layer approach to removing ones liberties; make out each change is small and use ludicrous justifications like "well, no one with anything to hide would object" and slice by slice individual liberties are eroded

Dave

Hi Dave, I'm assuming you're in the UK at the moment, did you watch Dispatches last night?
Scary stuff.
Several thousand people all arrested and released without any charge and yet their DNA and fingerprints have been retained on the records. And there's no redress to have their details taken off, yet they have broken no laws.
How many years before they have such a large database obtained in this manner before they start to say "Well, there are only a few thousand people not on the database, so let's make it compulsory" This is how insidious this way of government is becoming.
Technology is being developed to identify people from their facial photo, and with future cameras having facial recognition capabilities, they would be able to track everyone on the database, hows that for a surveillance system? They will have our facial photos on file if we allow them to create an ID card system.
They're already doing this at petrol stations with number plate recognition systems in place, why do they need to know where I fill up with petrol?
As Vic has said, all technology is eventually bypassed, and anyone with access to these systems could use them for their own ends if they wished, and there's always someone corrupt enough to do that.
The ID cards frighten me the most. And I used to have one when I was in the RAF. I don't see why I need to prove myself to anyone as I'm law abiding anyway.

Andy Wade

28-02-2006, 08:35

This particular topic is always an emotive one!

People really get on their high horse about invasions of privacy and violation of rights.

John

That's their right, it's called democracy. One of our inalienable rights to protest. Except within 1100 metres of Parliament if you haven't got permission from the police.
If you don't want people to protest about their right to privacy, then don't try to take it away.
Some people would have branches enabled to check me out if there is one child in the branch. We've already established that the CRB checks only catch the previously convicted, so if I was unconvicted so far and intending to molest a child, no-one would know anyway. But a CRB check would make the branch see me as safe, and they would inevitably lower their guard, whilst I make my plans to molest their children.
That's why blanket checks don't work. And it's also why I and others get on our 'high horses' because some people refuse to see it and make out that we have something to hide.
Why are they afraid about us protesting? Have they got something to hide?

PeteM

28-02-2006, 08:43

I don't...and I really struggle to understand the views of those that do

John

A common test for reasonableness on any civil liberties issue is to assess the impact if your worst nightmare was on the other side.

You may trust Mary Tetley as I think most people would, but what happens when your worst enemy takes over the vetting process? Are you still happy about them seeing private details about you?

You may trust new labour not to abuse the powers they give to themselves by the id card act and the prevention of terrorism act, but would you trust Margart Thatcher, Ken Livingstone or (pick any other politician that provokes hostile views in some)?

Chris Cherrington

28-02-2006, 09:34

You may trust Mary Tetley as I think most people would, but what happens when your worst enemy takes over the vetting process? Are you still happy about them seeing private details about you?

As best I understand it people who "prey" upon kids tend to work themselves into positions of authority (like Police for example - Marc de Trou [sp??] most recently). I also believe that such folk organise themselves into groups.

Clearly, the answer for those that seek to abuse their position would be to have someone "like minded" in the vetting position.

Maybe we should just go back to 18 as the minimum age to dive...:confused:

Chris

Vic

28-02-2006, 11:52

Hmmmm.
An awful lot of huffing and puffing, still boils down to would you want anybody to lust after or interfere with your child or other peoples children, if not why object or are you so insecure?.

Hmmmm.
An awful lot of snorting and farting, still boils down to what makes you think you've got the right to remove my rights?

Once again you are equating a refusal to submit to intrusion with an admission of guilt - that's not the case, and it's precisely the reason why I refuse to submit to said intrusion.

Vic.

Vic

28-02-2006, 11:53

Hmmm.
It seems some people have taken my comment personally, when it was aimed at nobody and was a general comment.

s/general/ill-informed/g

Vic.

Keith Lawrence

28-02-2006, 12:21

...still boils down to what makes you think you've got the right to remove my rights? Once again you are equating a refusal to submit to intrusion with an admission of guilt - that's not the case, and it's precisely the reason why I refuse to submit to said intrusion.What it boils down to is does Vic wish to be involved with branch activities that mean significant contact with children? If he does, but still refuses to undergo a CRB check, then his involvement with said children should be politely declined.

However - if he is a member of a primarily adult branch, and there just so happens to be a few kids around that he is not involved with, then he has every right to refuse the intrusion. My response to such a request would be EXACTLY the same as his! I would (and have) refused pointless checks "just to be on the safe side" when I have nothing whatsoever to do with minors, they are simply not needed.

Appropriate checks, procedures and policies in the appropriate place are what this is all about Ray. People object to the gross assumption that they are a raving pervert unless they somehow "prove" otherwise.

Keith L

Vic

28-02-2006, 12:23

People really get on their high horse about invasions of privacy and violation of rights.

As they should.

As Dave pointed out, civil liberties are not removed overnight, they are eroded little by little. Every freedom we surrender makes the next one easier to take from us.

I guess it all boils down to the fact that you really cannot sit on this particular fence - you either don't see a problem - or you do!

I don't...and I really struggle to understand the views of those that do (because they are at such divergence from my own

Then you've probably not been the subject of false accusations in the way that many have.

Suppose, for example, your local Police Force had investigated you for something heinous. Paedophilia is often a good example here - it's a very emotive subject, and there's a strong chance that no-one here actually is a paedophile. But let's suppose you had been investigated for this.

Under the terms of ths Enhanced CRB Check (which has already been used in the context of this thread), the Police could reveal the details of that investigation, and could even do so without your knowledge - "additional information may be sent under separate cover to the Countersignatory and should not be revealed to the applicant", according to the CRB website. So despite your having no convictions in this area, you could have a false impression of your being a paedophile sent to the Countersignatory without you even knowing it...

Don't believe that false accusations exist in such matters? Just look at the Cleveland case.

...on a VERY small, and optional, part of a responsible welfare strategy)

You think it's a bad thing that people are objecting to a small part of the strategy, rather than the whole thing?

It would bother me not in the slightest if people opted (as a branch) NOT to utilise the services of the CRB. What does bother me is the individual who insists that regardless of decisions taken by friends, associateds, family etc that they would simply dump all those relationships in favour of a moot point!

What bothers me is that people who claim to be my friends think they have a right to go delving through my private affairs. If you don't trust me - that's fine by me.

The info exists...anyone who has a legitimate reason for seeking it can get it!

it is NOT private information...it belongs to the people (and if people wish to make use of it...that's what it exists for!)

That's just not true. It is not public information, which is why the CRB system exists at all.

It remains to be seen whether BSAC falls under the auspices of ROA74 here; if that were the case, I'm not sure any branch could require a CRB check. I think I'll send some emails & try to find out...

Of course everyone has a right to refuse to apply for a CRB check

Indeed they do. What some of us are trying to ensure here is that such refusal does not lead to an automatic assumption of guilt.

If you don't like the policy within a branch...don't join it!

That's exactly what will happen.

Don't we already have a problem with declining membership numbers? Is this going to help?

If a CRB check were to provide any real benefit in terms of protecting members, I'm sure people would accept that impact. But there is no benefit, so all it can do is to damage us as an organisation and as a society.

Vic.

johnskerry

28-02-2006, 14:17

Keith Lawrence

28-02-2006, 14:41

I suggest the assumption that CRB checks are free for all is somewhat misguided. The CRB are a self financing government agency which had a 22 million deficit last year, 19% of these checks were free to volunteers. Are all BSAC members volunteers as defined by CRB ?Yes they are, but we have had to go through some expense to set it all up. Like you, I certainly would not rule out a "modest charge" being imposed upon us by the CRB!

K

Tony Dwyer

28-02-2006, 15:59

As others I am unhappy with the apparent 'Assunption of Guilt' that the CRB process implies.

I resent the implication that my friends kids are not safe with me. My friends trust me and I trust them.

I find myself very much in agreement with Keith.

Our branch has only one member under 18, a young man of 15, who could hardly be defined as 'a vulnerable person', he's over 6ft and could probably bend railway tracks. Nonetheless his Dad is always present.

Our policy is that we do not accept ANY minor for training unless one or both parents/guardian is also a member of the branch and is present at all times.

It is very likely that we will soon do away with even this policy, as the whole issue of dealing with minors is making various members of the branch nervous.

Our concerns extend to the club that uses our pool before us on Friday evenings. This is a swimming club and most of the members are under 15, some are under 10. Under normal circumstances we would still be in the changing rooms when they leave the pool. We have arranged that we will try to clear the changing rooms and be at the poolside before they finish. In the main this works OK, but occasionally late arriving branch members may find themselves in the changing rooms with hordes of screaming kids (I do not jest). When this happens we have to ensure that no branch member is left alone with the kids. This applies to all branch members male and female.

While I agree that we should protect our children, I feel that paranoia is running rampant and we are rapidly losing sight of basic freedoms that we all previously enjoyed, children as well as adults.

After school activities for kids are becoming more scarce as volunteers decide that they do not wish to jump through the various hoops that are now required of them. Years ago I used to run a Judo club (adults & kids), we used to travel all over the place to competitions and gradings, often without the parents. I would not run such an activity today. The social climate has changed drastically, not (IMMHO) for the better.

I have kids of my own and recently I have acquired grandchildren. I want them to be safe, but I don't want them or their parents to live in fear.

johnskerry

28-02-2006, 16:29

I hope you have that in writing from the CRB as I suspect only active instructors would be regarded as volunteers

John Williams

28-02-2006, 18:01

What it boils down to is does Vic wish to be involved with branch activities that mean significant contact with children? If he does, but still refuses to undergo a CRB check, then his involvement with said children should be politely declined.

However - if he is a member of a primarily adult branch, and there just so happens to be a few kids around that he is not involved with, then he has every right to refuse the intrusion. My response to such a request would be EXACTLY the same as his! I would (and have) refused pointless checks "just to be on the safe side" when I have nothing whatsoever to do with minors, they are simply not needed.

Appropriate checks, procedures and policies in the appropriate place are what this is all about Ray. People object to the gross assumption that they are a raving pervert unless they somehow "prove" otherwise.

Keith L

Even that is not a true, or FULL, refelction of the facts Keith!

There is yet another phase to go through before you get to the point where a check is even requested!

Your branch MUST adopt the BSAC Welfare Policy and all the common sense guidlines it containes regarding appropriate behaviour (designed to protect both vulnerable people AND those delaing with them).

After that the branch - as a whole - can debate the merits of including a CRB checking process into any/all categories of it's membership (e.g. only Instructors, only committee members, only those with significant contact with vulnerable others, everyone...or whatever they choose). They can even decide that CRB checks are a pointless exercise that will not enhance the behavioural guidelines sufficiently to justify the hassle they involve.

If that debate does not go your way... then you can usually assume that your views and opinions are out of step with the remainder of your branch...and this alone is sufficient reason to find a branch more in tune with your own. It does not need to boil down to a disagreement about CRB checks...unless YOU make it that way!

Everyone who is in the BSAC has a right to their opinion...but they do not have a right to go against the majority of the opinion in the section of the BSAC in which they operate - whether that be Branch, Region or National level.

So...ands Area Coach who's own branch does not require a CRB check...but who visits one who does - should accept that and get one done (or decline to visit that branch!). The Regional Coach can then decide how to manage that situation...w.ithin guidance set down in consultation with HQ.

A Council Member who sets policy for any branch which insists upon CRB checks (whether they visit them or not) should (IMHO) be prepared to undergo whatever screening process is asked for within any of the branches they represent (i.e. all of them)

Dunno quite how that fits with e.g. military branches (you would obviously not have to undergo Basic Training to represent a Royal Marines Branch)

It does however seem reasonable to expect civilian representatioves to undergo whatever civilian checks are required by those they represent.

John

Keith Lawrence

28-02-2006, 18:31

So...ands Area Coach who's own branch does not require a CRB check...but who visits one who does - should accept that and get one done (or decline to visit that branch!). The Regional Coach can then decide how to manage that situation...w.ithin guidance set down in consultation with HQ.By your reasoning John - not by everybodies. If as part of their coaching duties an AC had significant contact with children then they should have a CRB check, but just to visit a branch? Or are you trying to tell me that said branch demands a CRB check before a visitor walks through the door? Because if they did that I would refuse to visit them myself, and I have a CRB check!

A Council Member who sets policy for any branch which insists upon CRB checks (whether they visit them or not) should (IMHO) be prepared to undergo whatever screening process is asked for within any of the branches they represent (i.e. all of them)WHAT? Are you now trying to promote the idea that if any branch, anywhere, no matter how misguided, insists on a CRB check then the entire Council of the BSAC and everybody else should fall into line? I don't think so John. Then you go and come up with all kinds of exceptions that show how ridiculous such a policy would be if applied to anything other than a CRB check.

I keep on saying it, the purpose and application of CRB checks is to those who have significant contact with children. Nobody else, it is a complete waste of time and an unnecessary intrusion. I would also like to point out to you that in both situations the CRB check is useless - because although I have had a CRB check done the branches themselves DO NOT know the result of that check, neither are they entitled to have them. As you well know a CRB check is applicable to a particular date and a particular function, they are not transferable - so unless you are suggesting that said branches run their own checks on everybody who may be remotely associated with them your whole argument falls apart.

I'm sorry John, I do feel that you are taking this to silly levels.

Cheers

Keith L

Keith Lawrence

28-02-2006, 18:42

I find myself very much in agreement with Keith.You're not agreeing with me Tony - you're agreeing with the BSAC WoV Policy! Appropriate checks and procedures in appropriate situations, that's all that there is to it. Everything that I have been saying about the requirements for checks, the branch policies and procedures, comes from that BSAC WoV document.

K

John Williams

28-02-2006, 18:54

By your reasoning John - not by everybodies. If as part of their coaching duties an AC had significant contact with children then they should have a CRB check, but just to visit a branch? Or are you trying to tell me that said branch demands a CRB check before a visitor walks through the door? Because if they did that I would refuse to visit them myself, and I have a CRB check!

WHAT? Are you now trying to promote the idea that if any branch, anywhere, no matter how misguided, insists on a CRB check then the entire Council of the BSAC and everybody else should fall into line? I don't think so John. Then you go and come up with all kinds of exceptions that show how ridiculous such a policy would be if applied to anything other than a CRB check.

I keep on saying it, the purpose and application of CRB checks is to those who have significant contact with children. Nobody else, it is a complete waste of time and an unnecessary intrusion. I would also like to point out to you that in both situations the CRB check is useless - because although I have had a CRB check done the branches themselves DO NOT know the result of that check, neither are they entitled to have them. As you well know a CRB check is applicable to a particular date and a particular function, they are not transferable - so unless you are suggesting that said branches run their own checks on everybody who may be remotely associated with them your whole argument falls apart.

I'm sorry John, I do feel that you are taking this to silly levels.

Cheers

Keith L

By your reasoning Keith ...not everone else's!

If you wish to represent a branch who feels that a CRB check is important to them...then you should recognise what is important to them!

It is courtesy!

If you don't wish to represent that branch....then you are quite at liberty to ignore their wishes and desires! (and I would protect your right to do so!)

John

Andy Wade

28-02-2006, 19:23

By your reasoning Keith ...not everone else's!

If you wish to represent a branch who feels that a CRB check is important to them...then you should recognise what is important to them!

It is courtesy!

If you don't wish to represent that branch....then you are quite at liberty to ignore their wishes and desires! (and I would protect your right to do so!)

John

It's a shame you won't protect his right to privacy.

Tony Dwyer

28-02-2006, 19:33

You're not agreeing with me Tony - you're agreeing with the BSAC WoV Policy! Appropriate checks and procedures in appropriate situations, that's all that there is to it. Everything that I have been saying about the requirements for checks, the branch policies and procedures, comes from that BSAC WoV document.

K

Thanks Keith. I appreciate your point.

Regards

Keith Lawrence

28-02-2006, 20:04

By your reasoning Keith ...not everone else's! If you wish to represent a branch who feels that a CRB check is important to them...then you should recognise what is important to them! It is courtesy!It is a pity that when this subject is discussed that the courtesy that you promote does not work both ways.

John - we are going to have to agree to differ on this, we have never agreed in the past, we are not going to agree now. But perhaps you would like to explain to those who share your views exactly how me having a CRB check (or not) helps in any shape or form -

You only have my word that I have undertaken a CRB check
You do not know when it was undertaken
You do not know and can never know the results of that checkThe ONLY way that an individual branch can be sure of my CRB status is to request a check on me themselves, without that check being done, by every single branch who deems it important, my CRB status (or not) is totally irrelevant and unknown to those individual branches.

Please explain, in detail, how your "check everybody" system would actually work in practice.

My point is that such blanket CRB checks are a complete waste of time and simply not needed, but on that point we will never agree.

Kind Regards

Keith L

ray

28-02-2006, 20:20

Hi.
Its heartwarming to see that the BSAC hierarchy are singing from the same hymn sheet, perhaps this could be one of the reasons BSAC has the reputation it has.:o

Note what happened to TDI !....:rolleyes:

What do YOU think.:confused:

John Williams

01-03-2006, 00:35

It's a shame you won't protect his right to privacy.

As with all "politicians" ...when he takes public office he makes his private life (as far as it is relevant to that office) open to scrutiny.

Do you read newspapers?

Look at what Charles Kennedy (and all the people chasing his post) have had to put up with in terms of their private lives being made public...just because they wish to represent the public)

I don't see the difference between governmental politics and BSAC politics.

If someone wishes to act as an elected representative for members (of the public/BSAC) then they should expect to be scrutinised.

If someone wishes to act in a position of trust (such as an Instructor/Coach?etc) then they should expect to be scrutinised - wherever such scrutiny is required by common assent.

Whenever I have put myself forward for such a position:
Scout Leader
Brownie Pack Helper
BSAC Area Coach
School Governor
Employee of the NHS (a state employer)

...I have expected to be scrutinised...and the form of the scrutiny has been a CRB check.

I think it's daft...I think they'd be better seeking references, ensuring that my behaviour meets "code of practice" - but if that's what they want from me (and I want to join their organisation) then I'll comply.

If you refused to undergo a CRB check when one was required...you'd not get past that stage in any recruitment process (paid or unpaid)

Your option (and right to privacy) is in no way diminished by that. If you don't want to be scrutinised...don't put yourself forward for a position that requires it!

Otherwise I would be driving a different Ferrari every day...and since I object to having to pay for it it would be free!

That's the same argument isn't it?
If I want something ...then I have to pay the price!
If I'm not prepared to pay the price - then I can't have it!

John

John Williams

01-03-2006, 01:01

It is a pity that when this subject is discussed that the courtesy that you promote does not work both ways.

John - we are going to have to agree to differ on this, we have never agreed in the past, we are not going to agree now. But perhaps you would like to explain to those who share your views exactly how me having a CRB check (or not) helps in any shape or form -

You only have my word that I have undertaken a CRB check
You do not know when it was undertaken
You do not know and can never know the results of that checkThe ONLY way that an individual branch can be sure of my CRB status is to request a check on me themselves, without that check being done, by every single branch who deems it important, my CRB status (or not) is totally irrelevant and unknown to those individual branches.

Please explain, in detail, how your "check everybody" system would actually work in practice.

My point is that such blanket CRB checks are a complete waste of time and simply not needed, but on that point we will never agree.

Kind Regards

Keith L

Keith,

I fail to see where I have not been courteous in my discussions of this issue -please enlighten me?

I never said that blanket CRB checks were desireable - or were ever going to be practical.

Sport England said that they were looking at it as a requirement for NGB status to be continued. If you recall correctly I said that BSAC should seek to be represented in any subsequent discussions in order to oppose the move - since it was so impractical.

I actually beleive that CRB checks have taken on an importance and a significance FAR beyond their worth in any reasonable society. It is MUCH more important to provide a safe environment for all (the vulnerable and those who deal with them) - an environment where bullying and abuse stick out like a sore thumb and are not tolerated.

However - IF (and only if) a responsible branch adopts policy and procedure to ensure that such an environment exists and then a majority of its membership seeks to re-inforce (or back that up) with CRB checks then we should do everything we can to facilitate the decision that they have taken for within their own membership.

If you are on the losing side of the debate within a branch that decides (by a democratic majority) to adopt CRB checks - then you should consider your continued membership of that branch.

What we both agree upon is that a CRB check is worthless as a substitute or replacement for providing a safe environment. To base a claim to a safe environment upon CRB checks is both ludicrous and risable.

To say that the safe environment we provide - which will highlight innappropriate behaviour - is further protected by eliminating those most likley to exhibit innapropriate behaviour (those who would "fail" a CRB check) is, however, a valid argument.

At Branch level the actual results of the CRB check are irrelevant. All that matters is that the BSAC confirms that there is no reason why a person should not become a member. As a body the BSAC has decided (at a vote of democratically elected representatives - Council) that no-one who would "fail" a CRB check is permitted to remain a member of our national organisation...and, as you know, you cannot be a BSAC branch member, or a BSAC instructor if your BSAC National subscription is not valid.

So - as long as BSAC confirms (periodically - if required by the branch) that there remains nothing to exclude the person then that is all a branch requires (or is entitled to - since they would not meet the requirements the CRB place upon an Umbrella Organisation authorising checks).
To refer to your list ...at this point the Branch has a dated letter from the BSAC confirming that a) a check HAS been done and b) that it returned what was effectively a "null" response (who cares if you have been done for something completely unrelated anyway?)

And yes...we will have to agree to differ on this subject (as we have done in the past)

I trust that our disagreement will continue to have no adverse affect our friendship - or our mutual respect.

I will continue to seek to balance your biased opinion ...just as I expect you to balance mine;)

That's what discussion forums are all about...isn't it?

John

Keith Lawrence

01-03-2006, 07:57

John

The courtesy I was refering to was not you - you seem to think that I should comply with any wishes of any branch as a courtesy, I was commenting on the fact that it was very one way as that courtsety would not extend in the other direction.

I will bow out of this conversation at this point, it is getting circular once again. The fact remains that the policy of the BSAC, based upon the national guidance of the CPSU (and approved by them), is that a CRB check is desirable on those with significant contact with children. Nobody else, certainly not every member of every branch, and certainly not on every visitor to that branch. I will continue to fully support those members who do not wish to undergo intrusive and irrelevant checks just for the sake of it.

Kind Regards

Keith L

Andy Wade

01-03-2006, 08:43

As with all "politicians" ...when he takes public office he makes his private life (as far as it is relevant to that office) open to scrutiny.

Do you read newspapers?

No I don't, they're all full of lies. And the TV news is sanitised to what they think we would like to hear.

Look at what Charles Kennedy (and all the people chasing his post) have had to put up with in terms of their private lives being made public...just because they wish to represent the public)

Just because journalists have hounded a man who represents people in politics doesn't mean it has any justification. IMO Charles Kennedy is just as entitled to a private life as any one else is.
I often wonder how these fleet street journalists would fare if their private lives were made as public as some people have had to endure in the name of public interest. They'd be screaming that their right to privacy had been taken away. For goodness sake, we're talking about people who will go through your bin liners to get a story. Failing that, they make one up.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

I don't see the difference between governmental politics and BSAC politics.

If someone wishes to act as an elected representative for members (of the public/BSAC) then they should expect to be scrutinised.

I understand that Keith has been CRB scrutinised already, I see no reason for him to be scrutinised again just to visit a branch. Any branch that makes up stupid rules like that deserves to be without such representation. Such rules would be ultimately self defeating. BSAC is losing members as it is.

Tony Dwyer

01-03-2006, 09:44

Slightly off topic!

[QUOTE=Andy Wade]
Just because journalists have hounded a man who represents people in politics doesn't mean it has any justification. IMO Charles Kennedy is just as entitled to a private life as any one else is.
I often wonder how these fleet street journalists would fare if their private lives were made as public as some people have had to endure in the name of public interest. They'd be screaming that their right to privacy had been taken away. For goodness sake, we're talking about people who will go through your bin liners to get a story. Failing that, they make one up.
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".
QUOTE]

Hear Hear!! (oops showing my age a bit!)

Just because others live in the gutter, is no reason why we should follow suit.
I abhor the way that the press hound people 'in the public' interest. It is no such thing, it's in the interest of profit. I have no interest in who is 'seeing' who or what they drink. My only interest in politicians is are they doing the job they were elected for. Unfortunately that would mostly be in the negative.
Similarly, I have no interest in the private lives of my fellow branch members, as long as their activities are not criminal and do not impinge on me.

Vic

01-03-2006, 12:37

Its heartwarming to see that the BSAC hierarchy are singing from the same hymn sheet

It's more heartening to see the heirarchy saying what they believe, rather than trotting out mantras just to preserve some semblance of unity.

perhaps this could be one of the reasons BSAC has the reputation it has.

BSAC has a number of different reputations. I see no problem with a reputation for allowing people to speak their minds. Perhaps you see that as anathema.

What do YOU think.:confused:

I think you're a troll. Please prove me wrong.

Vic.

John Williams

01-03-2006, 12:51

I understand that Keith has been CRB scrutinised already, I see no reason for him to be scrutinised again just to visit a branch. Any branch that makes up stupid rules like that deserves to be without such representation. Such rules would be ultimately self defeating. BSAC is losing members as it is.

No-one said that anyone should have to do repeated checks...as long as a single BSAC check is in place then any member of the BSAC should be given access to any part of the BSAC that has democratically elected to restrict access to those with checks.

If a branch would not allow someone to be a member without a check...what right do the BSAC have to impose an advisor who does not meet their local membership requirements upon them?

Don't get me wrong...I think checks have a VERY minor role to play...and there are FAR more important things to put into place before we get hung up on a check (things that would not require a visiting outsider to do anything but follow behavioural codes accepted and published by the BSAC).

However - if a branch requires checks of it's own members then it is only fair that regular visitors/advisors (such as Coaches etc) are subject to simialar checks (all IMHO of course)

John

PS
As for the "gutter press". I agree that their methodology is extremely poor - but to be sure that those who represent you have not already misled you and lied, or are hiding a past that renders them unsuitable to represent you is a perfectly laudable objective.

If politicians were open and honest (there's an oxymoron if ever there was one) there would be no need for the "gutter press" to resort to "espionage"...and when sordid details were "uncovered" they would be meaningless ...because they would already be in the public domain.

Look at that "Simon" bloke who wants to take on Leadership that Charles kennedy stepped down from who said one thing one week and was proved to be a liar and changed his tune next week. I want my politicians to be truthful please. I don't care about their sexuality or their opinions ...as long as they are open about them and stick to their guns! Liars need not apply!

However ...if you are not a liar - and wish to represent me - then lay your cards on the table and prove it! (so many people have let me/the country down in the past that I think I'm entitled to my suspicions)

J

Vic

01-03-2006, 15:25

Well this has turned out to be a well-timed thread...

There are two people at HQ who are authorised to countersign your application for a CRB check. Therefore one of two people may review the copy of your Statement of Disclosure ...but ONLY the one who countersigned it on behalf of the BSAC may view it.

Not if the Government gets their way.

Today, the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill has been published. This could easily be the single most draconian piece of legislation this bunch of muppets has tried to push through - and that's saying something.

See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/079/06079.i-iii.html for details.

The main thrust is that anyone who has put themselves forward for vetting (i.e. anyone agreeing to the equivalent of a CRB check - although I don't yet know whether those who have already done so become considered "vetted persons") can have their details passed on to anyone on the permitted schedule.

Section 21, subsection 5 says

(5)
Relevant information is—
(a) the prescribed details of relevant matter (within the meaning of section
113A of the Police Act 1997);
(b) information which the chief officer of a relevant police force thinks
might be relevant in relation to the regulated activity concerned;
(c) such other information as may be prescribed.

In other words, the information that can be passed on is not restricted to criminal convictions or cautions - it is anything the Police decide might be relevant, as well as anything a future government might just decide to add. That's worrying enough.

But this information will only go to trusted people, won't it?

Wrong.

Schedule 4 (at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/079/06079.44-50.html#j14s ) lists the people who may have acces to this information at their whim. It contains such phrases as "Person who is considering whether to permit B to engage in regulated activity relating to children" - irrespective of whether or not B has expressed any interest in doing so.

And this isn't just my paranois talking - the DfES blurb page at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/hottopics/article23.shtml specifically mentions that members of the public will have access to the data : "For the first time, individuals, parents and families, including Direct Payment recipients employing nannies, music teachers, care workers, personal tutors will be able to make an instant online check of their barred status."

Whatever your view on the CRB check, this bill really must be kicked into touch.

Vic.

Chris Cherrington

01-03-2006, 15:48

It also allows a fine of up to 5 grand and up to five years porridge to any employer that "knowingly" hire someone on the list. Whilst amateur instructors are not at work all professional instructors are. I doubt if the amateur status will last long since this is in effect a "loophole" through which people can access children without being checked.

Chris

ray

02-03-2006, 21:37

It's more heartening to see the heirarchy saying what they believe, rather than trotting out mantras just to preserve some semblance of unity.

Obviously you no nothing about what has happened in the past.

BSAC has a number of different reputations. I see no problem with a reputation for allowing people to speak their minds. Perhaps you see that as anathema

It is you who have the problem with people speaking their minds, why are we on this forum if it is not to speak our minds.

I think you're a troll. Please prove me wrong.

Vic.

I notice you have not put anything in your profile, why not it helps to make our minds up on your replies, as for being a troll I have been in BSAC well over thirty years, that does give me a right to comment as I do have history, a lot of it wiping people like your's nose.
Please do not talk down to me, because if being a troll means I comment on what I see, then so be it.

Keith Lawrence

02-03-2006, 23:15

I notice you have not put anything in your profile, why not it helps to make our minds up on your replies, as for being a troll I have been in BSAC well over thirty years, that does give me a right to comment as I do have history, a lot of it wiping people like your's nose. Please do not talk down to me, because if being a troll means I comment on what I see, then so be it.Dear Ray et al

At this point I am going to close this thread, I feel that it has run it's course and nothing more enlightening will come out of it.

I feel that I must take some of the blame for this, I reviewed Vic's post very carefully thinking about whether I should edit it, on reviewing other posts I felt that it wasn't too far off some of the other posts and I decided that it should stand.

Ray - I am sorry if you were offended, as the forum manager I must take some of the responsibility for that. But please try to understand that some of your comments could also be taken as offensive. Vic is a very well known and long standing BSAC member as well Ray, we do not make the filling in of profiles mandatory :)

Vic - I thought that you were slightly out-of-order with your 'troll' comment, but in the light of other comments and your strong feelings on this matter I do understand your side of things as well.

So can we wrap this one up please by acknowledging that we're all in the same club and that we all have the same objective - that of protecting any vulnerable members of our club with appropriate and effective measures. The BSAC WoV policy, which has been vetted and approved by the NSPCC and carries thier logo on the front cover, is a document that details how that can be done and how it applies to dive clubs.

We will not all agree on the exact mechanisms, there has never been 100% agreement in the past and there never will be in the future. But everybody has a right to hold their own view, to promote it and debate it, just have we have done (once again!) in this thread.

Kind Regards

Keith L
Forums Manager