Opposition to CRB checks

eublues · 23-10-2006, 05:17 PM

Lengthy item on the PM programme on BBC Radio 4 has just been reporting on opposition to increasing further the crazy CRB requirements for contact with children.

As entertainer Johnny Ball said on the programme logically you would need to extend this business to all adults, as all have some contact with children. He said he will not do any further talks in schools if required to have this check. Described the whole thing creating a poisonous culture of fear and suspicion.

They had some listeners' emails read out too - saying about the need for children to be taught to look after themselves in interacting with other people, and that what should be fun occasions such as parents coming into a school to help out with a school trip being turned into a police operation, etc. Also suggested that children will lose out because of people not willing to help with activities. A surgeon described how he had to fill out separate CRB forms for every different employer he worked for.

Good on Johnny Ball for putting his head above the parapet.

arden forester · 23-10-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

The current legislation does not allow the self-employed or individuals to apply for a CRB check on themselves. In addition, parents who employ a nanny/au pair/babysitter directly cannot apply for a CRB check; however, if an agency supplies the nanny/au pair/babysitter, the agency is entitled to carry out a CRB check.

From the CRB website. These guys obviously don't see Hollywood films. :?

If you are an individual OK you get by. If you employ someone as a company etc you don't. It's all a bit crazy, but then quango people and their lawmaking bosses lost all sense of reason long ago! :wink:
http://www.crb.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=381

Westcountryman · 23-10-2006, 09:20 PM

As a volunteer worker, I have to do one for each agency/event I work for. Each of them require a separate disclosure, which is more than a little annoying to say the least.

andypandy · 27-10-2006, 05:16 AM

If, anyone that has been convicted of any offence, assuming it is not sexually related anyway, and has already been 'punished' by the state for their crimes with either a custodial sentence or fine, why therefore, is it assumed necessary to have to dislcose an offence years after it has lapsed or sunk into the realms of ancient history, as is the case with a full disclosure?

Is this just another way of saying, as is the case with those convicted of sexual offences, that in fact, the original sentence was a total ****, otherwise had it been sufficient to fit the crime, it would not have been possible for any 'dangerous' people to even be in a position to actually apply for work, as obviously, they would still be inside prison. If they have been tried, convicted, imprisoned then released, then clearly the law no longer recognises them as a threat so, why shouldnt they apply for work? Exactly when does a sentence end?, Surely, incarceration or fines should be the end of anyones treatment at the hands of the state, and should not be treated like second class citizens for the rest of their life?

If the justice system worked efficently, there would never be a need for the likes of the CRB, and if the justice system worked efficently, those convicted of any offence, once having served their time or paid their just dues, should then be free to pursue any carreer without the threat of harrassment or previous criminal history having to be dragged up. The state should not have it both ways.

It is just another nail in the coffin of a society of individuals free from the prying eyes of unelected and irremovable thought police.

23-10-2006, 05:17 PM	#1 (permalink)
eublues Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,970	Opposition to CRB checks Lengthy item on the PM programme on BBC Radio 4 has just been reporting on opposition to increasing further the crazy CRB requirements for contact with children. As entertainer Johnny Ball said on the programme logically you would need to extend this business to all adults, as all have some contact with children. He said he will not do any further talks in schools if required to have this check. Described the whole thing creating a poisonous culture of fear and suspicion. They had some listeners' emails read out too - saying about the need for children to be taught to look after themselves in interacting with other people, and that what should be fun occasions such as parents coming into a school to help out with a school trip being turned into a police operation, etc. Also suggested that children will lose out because of people not willing to help with activities. A surgeon described how he had to fill out separate CRB forms for every different employer he worked for. Good on Johnny Ball for putting his head above the parapet.

23-10-2006, 09:20 PM	#3 (permalink)
Westcountryman Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Westcountry. Posts: 5,922 Party: None	As a volunteer worker, I have to do one for each agency/event I work for. Each of them require a separate disclosure, which is more than a little annoying to say the least. __________________ Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

27-10-2006, 05:16 AM	#4 (permalink)
andypandy Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 880	If, anyone that has been convicted of any offence, assuming it is not sexually related anyway, and has already been 'punished' by the state for their crimes with either a custodial sentence or fine, why therefore, is it assumed necessary to have to dislcose an offence years after it has lapsed or sunk into the realms of ancient history, as is the case with a full disclosure? Is this just another way of saying, as is the case with those convicted of sexual offences, that in fact, the original sentence was a total ****, otherwise had it been sufficient to fit the crime, it would not have been possible for any 'dangerous' people to even be in a position to actually apply for work, as obviously, they would still be inside prison. If they have been tried, convicted, imprisoned then released, then clearly the law no longer recognises them as a threat so, why shouldnt they apply for work? Exactly when does a sentence end?, Surely, incarceration or fines should be the end of anyones treatment at the hands of the state, and should not be treated like second class citizens for the rest of their life? If the justice system worked efficently, there would never be a need for the likes of the CRB, and if the justice system worked efficently, those convicted of any offence, once having served their time or paid their just dues, should then be free to pursue any carreer without the threat of harrassment or previous criminal history having to be dragged up. The state should not have it both ways. It is just another nail in the coffin of a society of individuals free from the prying eyes of unelected and irremovable thought police.