Think of the children!

The costs of CRB checks are as follows :-
Standard CRB check =A326.00
Enhanced CRB check =A336.00
POVAFirst check =A36.00
... which to some clubs and individuals is out of the question.
As I have volunteered to assist at our sons school I have been CRB checked ( school paid ) but even so some parents still get VERY upset when I take photo's of him at his Saturday club.
Last year 18,000 unsuitable people were prevented from gaining access to children / vulnerable adults as a direct result of a CRB check, bringing the total to around 98,000 in the past five years.
Suggest you contact The Criminal Records Bureau direct
formatting link
"Umbrella Body"
"The development of the Umbrella Body network is a high priority for the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) to ensure that smaller organisations can gain access to its valuable public service. As an Umbrella Body you will be helping other organisations to improve their child and vulnerable protection policies, thereby helping to create a safer society."
Reply to
Dragon Heart
Loading thread data ...
Youth organisations such as Scouts are finding it difficult to recruit enough leaders because of the hoops people have to jump through.
Reply to
MartinS
Can you provide a direct link to that? I can't be a***d to wade through the CRB site looking for it. What were the criteria for unsuitability? Were they all paedos?
MBQ
Reply to
manatbandq
I wanted to train as a cricket umpire, so I could officiate at pub matches. To even join the organisation that I'm required to be a member of before taking the training, I would have had to let civil service weirdoes spy and pry to make sure I wasn't a danger to THA CHILDRUN, and they would have told strangers about any unfounded accusations that had been made against me which I never even knew about (there probably aren't any, but I have no way of being sure).
Never mind that I have no interest in childrens' cricket, that my local pub side instead consists mostly of large gentlemen with scars, tattoos, and no visible source of income, and never mind that an umpire stands out in the middle of a great big field where everyone can see what he's doing.
Consequently, I'm not a qualified umpire and so for those matches when a qualified umpire is required, I can't help out. Grassroots cricket has a desperate shortage of qualified umpires.
Reply to
David Cantrell
Nuts!
There's also a shortage of male teachers in secondary schools, because they are scared stiff about being accused of sexual assault by some 14 year old girl they have given a low mark to.
Reply to
MartinS
Arthur Figgis wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@brightview.co.uk:
You know I've read all the posts to this thread with an increasing sense of dismay. As a youngster I was a member of several clubs (granted none were model railway clubs), all of which had rules specific to younger members. And to be frank they were all fairly commonsense, for instance the fishing club didn't allow junior members to fish on certain waters if they were unaccompanied ... (a) the waters were remote and a drowned child doesn't do much to encourage new members or (b) there were problems with adult members getting thier time on the water spoilt by rowdy children ... and so on and so forth...
... and now I think of model railway clubs ... soldering irons here there and everywhere, poisonous fluxes or finishes, mains cabling running to exposed unshielded transformers, expensive hand built stock lying on shelves just waiting to be knocked to the floor ... and so on. Common sense dictates that it is perfectly reasonable that clubs place restrictions on junior members for a whole host of reasons even before we get to the dreaded "child protection" one.
And as for "Child Protection" again simple common sense applies, two simple rules cover just about all circumstances, 1 - a junior cannot join the club without the permission of a parent/guardian and 2 - no adult member is to be alone in a room/car etc with a junior member. An optional rule is to designate a member of the committee who is also a regular attender at the club rooms as a welfare officer or similar, his role is simply to be available should any junior member or parent wish to talk about any concerns they may have.
Simple isn't it, hardly bloody onerous or over protective ...
BTW up until last year my job entailed the hunting down and prosecuting of kiddie fiddlers and other who would set out to harm children and although I'm taking break for a while I will be going back to the work, in the meantime I deliver child protection training to schools etc.
Reply to
Chris Wilson
FWIW, when I was at school a local youth group leader did end up taking a long holiday in the West Country, after a kid spoke out following a camping trip.
I think b) is a bit of an issue, in that people are worried about telling a kid not to be a PITA in case the kid (or its parents) decide to take "revenge" by making trouble. The risk there isn't to the kids, it is to the adults.
Although the juniors could be using those things and worse every day at work, and driving themselves down to the clubhouse is a far greater risk to their life and limb.
I assume that is standard for most organisations. It is them having to be present at all times which is a bigger practical problem.
Except the guardian themselves, presumably?
The problem is how to ensure this (short of driving away junior members).
Would anyone in their right mind what to do that, when the point of the exercise is to have a hobby, rather than provide a social service?
My concern is about how many 17 year olds will want their mum to hold their hands all evening - and equally, how many mums will want to sit listening to blokes discussing their favourite types of pre-grouping valve gear every week?
I suppose model railways are a hobby for the under 16s and over 50s, as the attendance at most exhibitions demonstrates, so the problem is really limited to relatively few people who will usually soon be "lost" anyway, through work/university/gurls.
Reply to
Arthur Figgis
Arthur Figgis wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@brightview.co.uk:
....
Unless you're a teacher or have a particular responsibility towards a 16/17 year old (and these positions are defined in law to be certain social workers and the like ... certainly not fellow club members) you're free to shag them as much as they'll consent to ... and vice versa.
Sorry to be so blunt but it really is a non issue
Reply to
Chris Wilson
I have no problem with sensible rules - not suprising with having a 10 year old son. But I wonder if the current set actually reduce the number of molestations or just move them to other situations. Bit like clamp dowm on crime in an area that moves it to somewhere else. I dont want a rule that might prevent, want one that does prevent - does anyoner publish any useful stats ?. As shown the cost of these rules is childrun lose out on the pleasures of the clubs like model railways, plus us oldies lose out on the pleasure of passing on the knowledge. Yes I know I could pass on knowledge to my son, but as have said he likes diesels, plus he isnt keen on listening to me at times :-)
Cheers, Simon
Reply to
simon
Seems to me that children would be a lot safer among a bunch of old crocks playing trains than the alternative which is probably running loose on the streets.
Reply to
Lobby Dosser
/What/ is a non issue? I don't want to shag them, I want them to be able to join a model club. Having to drive them away so that nobody can do something which would be legal if they did do it, seems to me to be an issue.
If it was
Reply to
Arthur Figgis
I think Chris was referring to 16/17 year olds - they don't need hand-holding. In my previous job, we wanted to employ the son of an ex-employee who had left school but hadn't quite reached 16. The rules and regs involved in employing a 15yr old were so onerous that we (and he) waited a few weeks until he was 16, then employed him without needing any CRB checks or anything else relating to child abuse.
...and I think he did need protection from some of the women on the shop floor :-)
Reply to
Paul Boyd
When I was a lad we used to do things which would now be considered to be verging on international terrorism, such as taking photos of trains...
Reply to
Arthur Figgis
If I can find something to say all the fuss definitely does not apply to (16?,) 17 and 18 year-olds then it would be very good news. But there certainly seems to be a widespread feeling that it does (eg the policy someone posted further back says "between the ages of 16 and 18 ... must be accompanied by a parent or guardian").
formatting link
says "Regulated activity covers anyone working closely with children (any person under the age of 18)".
However it does also say this, which is interesting:
"Where teaching, training or instruction or care or supervision of children is merely incidental to the function of a role because the children are part of a mixed-age group and their involvement is incidental to the purposes of the activity, this is not regulated activity. To be considered ?incidental?, the presence of a child or children must either be unforeseen or be dependent on the presence of the adult for whom the relevant activity is actually being provided. In other words, the activity should be designed and provided for adults, rather than children."
I guess we really need proper legal advice, but being well past the age in question I don't care enough to pay for it. At least not until an 18-year old brewery heiress gets turned away because her elderly father is too sick to accompany her.
Reply to
Arthur Figgis
Why doesn't it surprise me that "they" offer contradictory guidelines? In the above reference, our 16 year old worker would be considered a child, yet in the workplace, even when people were working closely with him, they did not need CRB checks (as advised by Business Link at the time). What does seem strange (and I may have this wrong) is that if the same lad was working for us as part of an academic placement scheme, then we would have needed to be CRB checked. Hmmm... what a strange world.
Reply to
Paul Boyd
One might almost think this is all derived from badly thought through knee-jerk responses mainly intended to impress the proles rather than to solve actual problems, of the "something must be done, and this is something" variety. But I'm sure it's not at all like that in any way.
Reply to
Arthur Figgis

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.