Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html en-gb 30 Thu 25 Dec 2014 10:30:35 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html Licence payer http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=99#comment283 "Ian Huntley was a school caretaker at a completely different school to his victims. It had no bearing on the case. Why does the media and the people who drafted these laws still insist on quoting the case?"A very easy question to answer. They believe that if a lie is repeated often enough it will become the truth. Wed 16 Jun 2010 13:58:58 GMT+1 MrWonderfulReality http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=99#comment282 LOL, not in such a ridiculous manner.My LOL, is because of watching the 5 pretenders to Labours throne on BBC Newsnight last night.NONE of them actually have a clue as to why they lost the election.I think MUCH was to do with such attrocious legislation such as this vetting proceedure which included criminalising parents for taking their children and friends to activitys on a regular basis.The Labour party STILL just cannot see the effects that they had via FORCING every stupid idea on the population of Britain.Intention may have been fine, but the reality was that they MASSIVELY over-imposed so MUCH that the majority of people and businesses just did not want.The vetting proceedures currently in place are just basically ATTROCIOUS and this further imposition would just add to their attrociousness.It is nonsensical for teachers/nurses/careworkers or who-ever to have to re-apply and re-apply and re-apply via VARIOUS vetting proceedures for each and every job or circumstance.By the SAME reasoning, politicians should be VETTED for EACH and EVERY decision or policy they come up with, to ensure there is NO conflict of duty ANYWHERE. Wed 16 Jun 2010 12:55:47 GMT+1 DT_1975 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=98#comment281 14. At 10:18am on 15 Jun 2010, Gerard wrote:"Firstly, there is no such thing as overreacting when you are protecting and safeguarding children"Sorry Gerard, but you're wrong. As many people have pointed out here, there is such a thing as overreacting when it comes to protecting children. "Yes, the scheme is costly, but it makes sense, not only from an ethical point of view, but also a practical one"; Unfortunately, Gerard, you're wrong again. The Vetting and Barring Database was never going to be practical, nor was is ever likely to be effective. It can never be practical to vet everyone who has contact with children. I mean where would you start? For it to be truely effective, you'd have to start with parents, and work your way through relatives, neighbours, friends, local shop workers, and so on, till you covered pretty much everyone in the country. More worryingly is the issue of effectiveness. From your comment, I'm assuming you've never come across the concepts of false positives, and false negatives. (Those situations where someone who shouldn't be barred being reported as unsafe, and those situations where someone who should be barred being reported as safe.) The very nature of very large databases being used to identify very rare cases means that both of these situations would cause significant problems for the entire concept to actually work in practice. These situations are caused because it is impossible to create a truly accurate database without any errors. These errors can be caused by human error, data entry problems, name ambiguity (how many John Smith's are there in the country?), and pure chance, just to name a few.The very nature of false positives would mean that, for example, to successfully bar one abuser, you'd be preventing tens of thousands of innocent people working with vulnerable people. And, more worryingly, false negatives would leave vulnerable children in the unsupervised care of an abuser.Even more worrying than these easily measurable factors are the the unmeasurable ones that other posters have been mentioning here.I agree with you that we need to protect vulnerable children and adults from abusers, but this database was never going to achieve it. At best it would have just been an expensive white elephant which would have given some people a false sense of security, and at worse, it would have allowed abusers to continue abusing. Wed 16 Jun 2010 12:51:37 GMT+1 Paul http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=98#comment280 252. At 09:24am on 16 Jun 2010, Terry-Yaki wrote:This is pure anecdote, but I know someone who works for the agency which makes CRB checks, and she told me that those with histories of sexual crimes routinely make applications for jobs which give them access to children (e.g. in schools), so the argument that "it will never catch the guilty" is patently not true. It doesn't fill me with confidence to know that those applicants will now just be waved through.They make the attempt because there are no ramifications to failing the CRB check, apart from the money spent, which is often paid by the organisation being applied for. In an ideal world failing the CRB check would just be the beginning, the police should question them as to why they were applying, and where possible charge them with an offence. "Well, for a start, sexual crimes are not necessarily dangerous to children (eg prostitution, or kerb-crawling looking for a prostitute, or walking naked around your house and being reported for indecency by a neighbour, or a 15 year old boy 'sexual hugging' his girlfriend). Treating all 'sexual criminals' as dangerous to children is extremely prejudicial.For anyone who is considered a danger to children, I would expect it to be a violation of licence or parole for them to apply for a job working around children - so the parole office should be very interested in that application. If the request is not communicated to them, then THAT is something that would be better addressed, rather than treating the rest of the innocent population as guilty.Also, they're not getting rid of CRB checks, just the additional Vetting & Barring system. (Hopefully, they'll reform CRB checks as well, but I don't hold out much hope for that) Wed 16 Jun 2010 12:16:56 GMT+1 mumsie54 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=98#comment279 I would hope that all those having regular contact with children, including priests, sports coaches, child minders and voluntary workers, will continue to be checked. I know it's not a foolproof answer, but at least its a start.I am alarmed at the number of people stating that it is usually relatives and family members that are the abusers.They seem eager to let others off the hook. I had believed that too in the past. I also imagined them to be working class or unemployed, middle aged,overweight and generally unsavoury looking.My daughter was seriously abused at seven years of age by a volunteer table tennis coach. He had always been a 'pillar of society' type, with lots of cups and awards for his work with children over many years -of whom he had abused more than eighty before being caught out and sent to prison. Thankfully my daughter was his last victim. He was a sweet looking, white haired old man in his seventies.If you met him tomorrow you would never in your wildest dreams think there was any reason to fear this man around your children. He was only in contact with my daughter a few times over two weeks - (we were on holiday) and only alone with her for short periods of time - twenty minutes here, ten minutes there - all done quickly, expertly, after his lifetime of practice. And yes, you are right, he would not have shown up on any checks as he hadn't been prosecuted before. But that was nine years ago now, and, assuming he is still alive and fit enough, he will now be circulating amongst you and is probably looking for a bit of low profile volunteer work around children.And I want to know that he can never do that. Wed 16 Jun 2010 12:14:06 GMT+1 adelaide http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=97#comment278 If you want to work in a responsible position with other people's children then you must have a police check. When you have a police check you get a copy of the certificate and you just need to show it when requested. If an employer requires a police check then they must pay for one. An employer, i.e a school, can phone for a verbal check to ensure you have no current investigations in progress. If an employer wants more then they are being totally unreasonable and are putting blocks in place to prevent employment. As to looking after friends/neighbours children you have to rely on trust. Unless you have been convicted or investigated for paedaphilia then you will not have a police record but that does not mean you are safe to look after children. I would never let a child of mine be looked after by someone i did not know and i would expect schools to have police checks done on their employees. Wed 16 Jun 2010 12:13:34 GMT+1 Paul http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=97#comment277 70. At 1:03pm on 15 Jun 2010, Val wrote:On one occasion, I actually heard a member of staff tell a parent that he couldn't take a picture of his son being a shepherd in the nativity play, and that if he did, the staff member would have to report him to the police. While I have my doubts that this staff member knew what she was talking about, if she was in fact correct then the law is an ass."Nonsense. At our kids' schools they request that you don't take flash pictures during the plays because it distracts the children (and at that age, they're easily distracted...), but they have a 'photo-shoot session' at the end where they all line up in groups for parents to take photos.Generally schools & youth groups etc will ask parents if they (the school/youth group) can take pictures of children for publicity/news articles, and most parents are quite happy to let them do that. I'm not sure if that's legally required, but it's a courtesy and it makes everyone happier. Wed 16 Jun 2010 12:01:34 GMT+1 Martin Swift http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=97#comment276 So when another child is found DEAD from abuse...do we blame the Home Secretary and no one else...When a child is found to be nurtured by an adult for SEX...do we blame the Home Secretary and no one else...When a Catholic Mother give her sweet little girl a crucifix to wear and this little girl goes to a state school and is vilified for wearing it because there is Muslims at the same school who could be offended...do we blame the Home Secretary and no one else...When in Hospital a genuine mistake is made by giving a Muslim a breakfast containing Bacon and a complaint is made and someone looses their job under Race Relations...do we blame the Home Secretary and no one else...Is it me or were we to understand that this Coalition Government was going to act responsibly and not pass the buck and ensure the vulnerable were to be protected...perhaps the dealing of the day is expenses first! Wed 16 Jun 2010 12:00:53 GMT+1 Shaunie Babes http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=96#comment275 Ian Huntley was a school caretaker at a completely different school to his victims. It had no bearing on the case. Why does the media and the people who drafted these laws still insist on quoting the case? Wed 16 Jun 2010 11:59:19 GMT+1 Paul B http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=96#comment274 How can any society function properly when there is apparently an underlying assumption that everyone who works with or even goes near children is a possible paedophile, abuser.....Children are at much greater risk from their parents/immediate carers than from strangers. If those who transport, work with children are to be vetted why not apply it to ALL parents and ALL parents to be.A society where distrust predominates cannot survive. Wed 16 Jun 2010 11:55:07 GMT+1 Italophile http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=96#comment273 "Is vetting and barring scheme needed?"Yes, - but the one we've already got is perfectly adequate. The previous govt's proposals are ridiculously over the top. Wed 16 Jun 2010 11:51:40 GMT+1 BigBob http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=95#comment272 Common sense has prevailed and the review on current CRB system is needed. As an employer whos team members require enhanced CRB's I feel it necessary to improve the CRB service. I have lost perfectly employable candidates due to the lenght it can take to recive a CRB certificate, normal between 6 - 13 weeks. People simply cannot afford to wait this length of time before commencing work. Secondly the requirement for one person requiring four or more seperate CRB's, if working near a county border or carrying out contract work for other companies should also be considrerd in any review. Lets hope that the goverment can begin to work with the people working with children and vulnerable adults to provide a better and faster service! Wed 16 Jun 2010 11:48:33 GMT+1 Paul http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=95#comment271 269. At 11:59am on 16 Jun 2010, chronocompos wrote:Call me an old cynic if you like. But I think the vetting scheme along with the CRB scheme are less about protecting children and more about giving organisations a legal leg to stand on when someone DOES turn out to be dodgy and then the parents sue them.if we didn't live in such a litigious society then maybe we'd have more relevant ways to protect our children."It's no so much 'when someone does turn out to be dodgy' as 'when a child accuses someone of being dodgy'. There are cases where children have accused adults of abuse when the adults have upset them in some innocent way (eg told them off for something).A LARGE amount of 'child protection' guidelines are really 'child worker protection' guidelines so that there are other witnesses to prove that the suggested abuse didn't take place. Wed 16 Jun 2010 11:33:56 GMT+1 chiptheduck http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=95#comment270 This post has been Removed Wed 16 Jun 2010 11:07:12 GMT+1 bigsammyb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=94#comment269 "70. At 1:03pm on 15 Jun 2010, Val wrote:Maybe now I'll be allowed to take a few pictures of my daughter having fun at her annual sports day. For the past two years, the only way I've been able to get any pictures of my child enjoying herself at nursery is to get a DVD burned by the nursery staff after key events. And of course, I have to pay for this. Then, I have to trawl through all of the images and video footage, of which none may actually be of my child.On one occasion, I actually heard a member of staff tell a parent that he couldn't take a picture of his son being a shepherd in the nativity play, and that if he did, the staff member would have to report him to the police. While I have my doubts that this staff member knew what she was talking about, if she was in fact correct then the law is an ass."No that is not true and as a teacher he should know better.It is NOT illegal to take a photo of ANYONE even if it is against there will, they have no legal rights whatsoever.Afterall how would the news media work otherwise?It is only illegal to record somebodies VOICE against there will.Labour did try and erode this by making a law that says you can't film the police if they suspect you are using it for the purposes of terrorism. Hopefully this law will be overturned afterall how would we of found out about the flagerant abuse of power at the G8 protests if it weren't for the public taking footage on mobile phones? Wed 16 Jun 2010 11:07:09 GMT+1 chronocompos http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=94#comment268 Call me an old cynic if you like. But I think the vetting scheme along with the CRB scheme are less about protecting children and more about giving organisations a legal leg to stand on when someone DOES turn out to be dodgy and then the parents sue them.if we didn't live in such a litigious society then maybe we'd have more relevant ways to protect our children. Wed 16 Jun 2010 10:59:35 GMT+1 Phil Davies http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=94#comment267 No Wed 16 Jun 2010 10:47:52 GMT+1 doilookthatsilly http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=93#comment266 The apparent wilingness of our new government to use common sense instead of mindless PC attitudes is to be applauded - lets hope they actually carry these refreshing ideas through and are not deterred by any more "human rights" rubbish which ofte serves to undermine any sensible ideas! Wed 16 Jun 2010 10:41:33 GMT+1 Paul http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=93#comment265 165. At 5:23pm on 15 Jun 2010, Karen wrote:it wasn't simply a case of trying to monitor everyone. Soham was avoidable;"Not by any procedures which are in place now, or were planned."if these procedures were in place, Huntley would never have got a job as a school caretaker."The fact he was a school caretaker was irrelevant. The girls didn't know him from that role. They didn't know him at all. He just happened to be the partner of their teacher. He could have been a shop assistant or lorry driver for all that mattered, and then he wouldn't have needed a CRB check or vetting or anything."Maybe he would still have murdered a child, but his opportunities to become friendly with them etc would have been reduced."His opportunities to become friendly with Jessica & Holly were nothing to do with his being a school caretaker. Nothing at all!The Soham murders are excellent evidence why CRB checks & vetting schemes WILL NOT WORK! Wed 16 Jun 2010 10:39:03 GMT+1 Neil Williams http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=92#comment264 "What's more important - children's safety or money?"It depends. In a capitalist society, everything has its price, and whether it should be done or not tends, like it or not, to have a cost benefit analysis as the main factor in the decision whether to do it or not.Bearing in mind that the available money is finite (a point that Labour perhaps missed), if the same money could be spent on, for example, a road safety improvement that might protect more peoples' safety than doing this, it should be done. Wed 16 Jun 2010 10:36:42 GMT+1 Paul http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=92#comment263 The best way to prevent child abuse is to have MORE contact between MORE adults and children.The children who are most vulnerable are those who are more isolated.Most adults are good contacts for children to have, and the more adults there are that children feel safe around, the more likely any potential abuse is going to be reported before it goes too far.All this paedophile paranoia does is make it easier for those paedophiles who do get in contact with children to keep it secret. Wed 16 Jun 2010 10:33:29 GMT+1 Craig H http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=92#comment262 I'm a foster carer and agree with the scaling back. Most abuse occurs within families - if we are serious about child protection this is the area that needs to be scrutinised. Many men are scared off from working with kids because of the fear of being suspected as or labled a paedophile. This a step in the right direction. We need to inspire confidence in the people working with kids and not instill fear. Those working closely with children already undergo checks this would have been a costly and pointless exercise. Wed 16 Jun 2010 10:30:53 GMT+1 Johnnybgood http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=91#comment261 At last some common sense prevails over the foolish PC-Brigade. Wed 16 Jun 2010 10:27:00 GMT+1 Jon Cooper http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=91#comment260 I saw a small girl fall from equipment in the local playground, but I'm a 6'3" male built like a brick outhouse so I don't even go in the park, instead of helping I phoned my wife (who had 7 current CRB checks), she arrived a few minutes later, comforted the girl and went off to find her familyI still feel bad that the girl sat crying for those minutes while I didn't dare go to her rescue because of the current "peado in every corner" mentality - but there is no way I would even consider approaching a small crying child Wed 16 Jun 2010 10:24:57 GMT+1 Caroline http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=91#comment259 The scheme was a ridiculous waste of money. Like any such scheme it only "proves" that a person hasn't been caught - yet.Many of the 'possibly' harmful situations should not arise anyway. An occasional school visitor should be escorted. They should never have the opportunity to be alone with one or two kids.A private tutor should not be treated as a glorified babysitter. If a parent is at home for lessons then the child is safe.There are better ways to keep kids safe than bureaucracy and paper pushing. Wed 16 Jun 2010 10:15:08 GMT+1 JFR http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=90#comment258 Anything that erodes away the "nanny state" set up by Labour has to be to our benefit. Like many on here as an ex teacher I have be subjected to the inevitable CRB check which takes forever and costs a lot. A simple scheme whereby you only need one of these every ten years or so and it can be transferred if you move job or take up some voluntary work would be good but the extreme to which the last government was prepared to go - not good. I was beginning to think about leaving the country as I was fed up of being watch, checked and nannied at every step of my life. Please please please Mr Camerson get rid of some more of the policies which intrude into our daily lives and rob us of our dignity. Wed 16 Jun 2010 09:24:23 GMT+1 William_prunier http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=90#comment257 At 11:17pm on 15 Jun 2010, Hanny-Banany wrote:Those people who are really committed to working with children, either as volunteers or running sports clubs etc would not be put off by this process. Who wants a half-hearted person with no commitment "If you're going to treat me like that, then I won't bother" working with their children? I don't.Hanny, What do you think might be the quickest way to turn a whole - hearted, committed, enthusiastic volunteer or person who works with children, into the complete opposite? I can tell you many of the above committed people you have described eventually, though they loved it, giving up working with children due to the continual jumping through hoops they have to do to prove they are not a paedophile. Do you want anyone to bother to volunteer in the future?At 09:24am on 16 Jun 2010, Terry-Yaki wrote:Frankly, this is just one of many problems a National Identity Database could have solved, but there we go...Excuse me Terry. Our relatives did not fight in two world wars so we could have a national database to erode our freedoms. You might buy the fear being perpetuated in our media but open your eyes. Why does EVERYBODY have to be checked???? The people who have been convicted should be extremely closely monitored, in fact that is where the money and resources should be deployed, rather than chasing the easy target of the innocent. Wed 16 Jun 2010 09:14:23 GMT+1 AM http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=90#comment256 The scheme was totally useless and a waste of money. More concerning is that British society now has this attitude and makes the judgement that all men (mostly) are paedophiles and we need a piece of paper to say we are not!Facts reveal that most murders of children are done by family member’s not strange little men hanging around school playgrounds. Wed 16 Jun 2010 09:07:02 GMT+1 Terry-Yaki http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=89#comment255 "234. At 01:45am on 16 Jun 2010, Warg60 wrote:It has been pretty well debated here that most abuse is done by the family (and as a step father, I really would like to point out that biological relatives are far more likely to abuse than step parents - not what the media like to protray)."Not true. Statistically, step-parents are far more likely than biological parents to abuse the children in their care. It's called the "Cinderella effect" and it is possibly the result of an evolved tendencies in mammals to kill the offspring of a new mate's previous partner, to maximise resources for their own offspring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinderella_effect Wed 16 Jun 2010 09:02:39 GMT+1 Have your say Rejected http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=89#comment254 Yes vulnerable people do need to be protected against. The old CRB system was a failure. Having worked in the care industry for 15 years I saw a lot of undesirable people get care jobs and subsequently lose care jobs for abusive practices. Wed 16 Jun 2010 08:58:20 GMT+1 Terry-Yaki http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=89#comment253 "243. At 08:25am on 16 Jun 2010, ruffled_feathers wrote:Different point - when a small child fell off their bike in the road and dissolved in tears, I did get them back on their feet, found their friends who hadn't noticed what had happened - and wondered whether I would later find a policeman on my doorstep."And did you?Like a lot of things e.g. CCTV, CRB checks are a proportionate response to a recognised risk. A lot of peoples' reactions, however, are quite out of proportion to the effect it has on them. Take Stop and Search for instance - if people don't give the police hassle, it can be over in about 15 seconds. Unfortunately, some newspapers e.g. the Daily Mail constantly talk up what a massive infringements on our ancient liberties etc etc this or that safety or security measure is, replacing reasoned debate with vitriol. "203. At 8:31pm on 15 Jun 2010, Licence payer wrote:"The only people who would be "put off" by the prospect of one would be someone with something to hide,"That old chestnut.Lots of people have been put off already, according to charities. Do you think they were all child abusers?"No, they were probably just lazy. Having filled out the paperwork for many CRB checks myself, I know it can be an inconvenience, but if people want to avoid all inconvenience, why are they volunteering in the first place?! All the volunteering I've done, the actual work was a lot more challenging than filling out a form, so if someone can't motivate themselves to get past that stage, they would have been a frankly useless volunteer."244. At 08:35am on 16 Jun 2010, romeo wrote:I would also like to state that CRB checks need to be reviewed because they discriminate against the working class.If someone has received a conviction/caution for a non-child related offence this should not be held agsint them in an enhanced CRB.A lot of working class youths do get into trouble with the police. But holding this against them results in the self-fulfiling prophecy."And even more "working class youths" don't get in trouble with the police; being "working class" doesn't release you from responsibility for your actions. If, for instance, you are arrested for shoplifting, this shows a lack of personal integrity and honesty, and it is quite right that this excludes you from positions where these things are important. Remember, not all abuse is sexual in nature; care workers who steal from clients, for instance, are still abusing them. Wed 16 Jun 2010 08:47:49 GMT+1 Kim http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=88#comment252 We spend a lot of time and money trying to protect children and vulnerable adults, but the reality is that 100% protection is not possible. Whatever system is in place, people intent on harming will find a way around it. In my opinion the Criminal Record Bureau (CRB) checking system has actually made children and vulnerable adults less safe as we rely on people with a clear CRB check being "safe". The vetting and barring scheme would present the same problem. We should be relying on observation, knowledge, and stopping opportunity. - Put sensible precautions in place (eg. try to avoid one-to-one situations)- Teach those capable of learning it: how to identify 'wrong' behaviour, how to avoid potentially harmful situations, who to talk to if they are worried.There will always be harmful people out there, but they are extremely few in number, and most people are safe. Be aware of it and take precautions, but don't let it rule your life. Wed 16 Jun 2010 08:44:05 GMT+1 Terry-Yaki http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=88#comment251 "227. At 11:17pm on 15 Jun 2010, Hanny-Banany wrote:When the Soham Murders happened, there was an outcry. Why was someone working in a school that has previous convictions? A report was made that criticised the local authorities and various police forces involved with not sharing and tracking information.The coalition government is now getting rid of ContactPoint - a system designed to secure infromation at source, restrict the people who have access to information on children, make sure it is correct, and share it amongst authorities.The vetting scheme is also being scrapped. Sure, an offender who hasn't been caught yet won't have a criminal record. But many others with a criminal record for child abuse offences would have been prevented from working in places where they had ready access to children; jobs which offenders actively seek out. For what reason have these been scrapped? Because it's "inconvenient" and "takes a long time". It might "put people off" and "infringe their civil liberties". Civil liberties seem a lot more valuable than child safety and security these days."Sad but true. Ultimately, the middle-class Guardianistas who complain about these things have no idea about reality, and are pretty safe anyway. It's those without a voice who are most at risk from crime and terrorism. This is pure anecdote, but I know someone who works for the agency which makes CRB checks, and she told me that those with histories of sexual crimes routinely make applications for jobs which give them access to children (e.g. in schools), so the argument that "it will never catch the guilty" is patently not true. It doesn't fill me with confidence to know that those applicants will now just be waved through. They make the attempt because there are no ramifications to failing the CRB check, apart from the money spent, which is often paid by the organisation being applied for. In an ideal world failing the CRB check would just be the beginning, the police should question them as to why they were applying, and where possible charge them with an offence. Frankly, this is just one of many problems a National Identity Database could have solved, but there we go... Wed 16 Jun 2010 08:24:58 GMT+1 Reflectionseeker http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=88#comment250 244. At 08:35am on 16 Jun 2010, romeo wrote: "I would also like to state that CRB checks need to be reviewed because they discriminate against the working class.If someone has received a conviction/caution for a non-child related offence this should not be held agsint them in an enhanced."One of the problems with the CRB has been that employers and other interested parties have been using it to circumvent the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, claiming exemption for posts without any real justification. Enhanced CRB disclosure tends to go hand-in-hand with exemption.An example of this is the NHS demanding enhanced disclosure for administration staff under the "patient contact" clause, when the extent of that 'contact' may be access to patient data.Exemptions are now so common that the ROA is becoming impotent, hence yet another good, progressive law is eroded by bad, reactionary laws. Wed 16 Jun 2010 08:24:36 GMT+1 youarejoking http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=87#comment249 Some common sense at last.However its not just this disclosure that should be looked at,the CRB in general should also be re vamped with many of its powers relocated. Many people who have been accused of abuse but not charged or convicted are ostracized through other disclosure ruining their lives,such as care workers,school teachers,nurses etc etc and thus excluding them from nearly all employment including humble cleaning.A criminal records check has been used to criminalise people to satisfy lobbyists. These unfortunates who were never guilty of anything including ex convicts when they have already been punished through the legal system can't even get the most basic of employment because of these draconian rules.When those same people try to get records set straight they come up against the state and the mind numbing robotic-civil service with its endless departments of people who make excuses or hide behind the law. If the state wants to stop "potential" abusers then devise a fairer system which doesnt tar everyone with the same brush.You cannot stop up the up and coming abusers without first educating and removing temptation when they are still children. Nearly every abuser of children or vulnerable adults used to be abused themselves.Lets have common sense rules instead of the Stalin approach where there are innocent people suffering.Any abuse is unforgiveable but our society is guilty of abuse to its people with ill thought out laws rushed through by the media and lobbyists. Wed 16 Jun 2010 07:56:52 GMT+1 DibbySpot http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=87#comment248 The evil of society are always with us. Almost all abuse happens in the family or home context so there is not evidence that this expensive system would actually have worked. Wed 16 Jun 2010 07:53:17 GMT+1 Keith http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=86#comment247 New Labour is dead. This vetting scheme would have been another jobs for the boys, and girls, creation of theirs that would achieve nothing useful. Wed 16 Jun 2010 07:49:19 GMT+1 Mike from Brum http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=86#comment246 I feel sorry for today's kids and their parents. When I was young, I played out in the streets and wandered for miles in the surrounding countryside from about the age of 5 onwards. Never came to much harm (the odd scraped knee and similar). Today there is an obsession that there is a paedo on every street corner and the kids have to be protected against them. I don't think that's the case; but I understand why parents won't take that chance. Now kids stay in and are less healthy as a consequence. Publications (the gutter press) that over-egg the threat should be called to account. Give us all back innocent until proven guilty and give the kids back their childhood. Wed 16 Jun 2010 07:49:17 GMT+1 The Flaming Bear http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=86#comment245 Won't someone PLEASE think of the children? Wed 16 Jun 2010 07:44:07 GMT+1 Louisa http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=85#comment244 The current processes are sufficient enough provided they are actually followed and maintained, which I doubt they are in 100% of cases. Why not just tighted up, be vigilant and stop cutting corners... be efficient!Spending more money on more hair brained schemes as a knee jerk reaction will not solve the problem. Wed 16 Jun 2010 07:37:17 GMT+1 romeo http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=85#comment243 I was not a fan of the lib-con coalition at all but now I defintely am! Well done to Theresa May for using common sense. I would also like to state that CRB checks need to be reviewed because they discriminate against the working class.If someone has received a conviction/caution for a non-child related offence this should not be held agsint them in an enhanced CRB.A lot of working class youths do get into trouble with the police. But holding this against them results in the self-fulfiling prophecy. Everything needs to be proportionate and fair and thanks to the coalition government who are beginning this trend. Wed 16 Jun 2010 07:35:57 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=85#comment242 "235. At 03:26am on 16 Jun 2010, Ken pearson wrote:vulnerable adults i haven't seen many of them"Ken, I am not sure, but I think there are many vulnerable adults with learning difficulties or the onset of dementia not sufficiently severe to warrant a carer or a residential care home. You may not have noticed them because many of them won't stand out.Different point - when a small child fell off their bike in the road and dissolved in tears, I did get them back on their feet, found their friends who hadn't noticed what had happened - and wondered whether I would later find a policeman on my doorstep. Wed 16 Jun 2010 07:25:38 GMT+1 Jan Robins http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=84#comment241 This post has been Removed Wed 16 Jun 2010 06:59:32 GMT+1 Murrayfield http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=84#comment240 As someone who has a Registration under Disclosure (Scotland), I would say this. Parents must have the confidence in the people who work with their children. All those who say it was a pointless exercise should have to look a distraught parent in the eye and say that to them. I doubt they would agree. Peadophiles have been shown to be the most convincing people who gain the trust of even the most careful of parents. It is impossible to remove all risk, but it can be reduced. Wed 16 Jun 2010 06:08:03 GMT+1 Astrid Lindborg http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=84#comment239 This post has been Removed Wed 16 Jun 2010 06:02:58 GMT+1 chrislabiff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=83#comment238 The scheme would have repeated the pattern of waste and obstruction charateristic of governments. Wed 16 Jun 2010 05:41:01 GMT+1 paganpaul http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=83#comment237 The Vetting and Barring scheme was an expensive and ineffective way of gathering up every bit of tittle-tattle and gossip about people and storing it in a central database. The next step must be to remove enhanced CRB checks for office workers - in many local authorities this is a requirement but breaches the principles of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Why should people have to disclose offences which took place 20 years ago every time they apply for a job?The Labour Party was putting a Police State in place and thank God they have been voted out of office. Let's hope they never get back into power again. Wed 16 Jun 2010 05:24:50 GMT+1 Lord Elric http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=83#comment236 What a sad society it is that needs to consider CRB checks and vetting as necessary. When I was growing up my mother instinctively knew when I was in a safe and caring situation; when my kids were growing up, I like to think I had the same instinct and neither I, my brother nor my own children or his came to any harm.I've cared for my children's friends when they slept over and other parents did the same for my children - it seemed to work out okay, or was I just lucky? I made my own judgements about parents I thought might not give the right (in my view) level of care that I might expect and took appropriate action.Is the additional care and legislation deemed necessary due to parents who abdicate responsibility; who are competitive without being compassionate? The world is now full of monstrous children as well as monstrous adults - perhaps the world now is simply a monstrous place. One thing is for sure, we're all responsible for making it so! Wed 16 Jun 2010 04:48:50 GMT+1 Gholamhosain Tasbihi http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=82#comment235 This post has been Removed Wed 16 Jun 2010 03:53:20 GMT+1 Ken pearson http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=82#comment234 vulnerable adults i haven't seen many of them and if there are some which i am not saying there ain't but adults can look out for them selfs and if they can't then they should be in care or have a carer and they would of been crb checked the fact is there are some real sick o's about today but look wat we do for them after the sick things they have done may be spend as much as 1 m on keeping them changing there names and then put them on a council estate full of kids for them to have a chance too do sick twisted thing again nice goverment and council we got in it if it was me i would kill any pedo if i caught them but then i would spend 10 years in jail for that ok i can live with that in my mind it b worth it children should'nt have to here about sick things like this and if the time fits the crime it would'nt b happening so i say hang the sick twisted XXXXXXXXXXX u know wat the stars say any way caststraight even even the thought of wat they do make me sick to my stomach any one touch my kids and i do more then 10 years i tell you Wed 16 Jun 2010 02:26:43 GMT+1 Warg60 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=82#comment233 It has been pretty well debated here that most abuse is done by the family (and as a step father, I really would like to point out that biological relatives are far more likely to abuse than step parents - not what the media like to protray).However, some abuse is done by "strangers" and people in position of trust. It make sense, once they have been found guilty and convicted, to make sure that they can't get "easy access".So, you want to work with kids, present your passport. The number is taken and banged into a website. The website says either ok, or a further check is needed.Minimal cost, only data that needs to be tagged is a flag into the database of convicted criminals; and you get to know if the individual is who they say they are. Job done, and cheaply too :)It would help if the media grew up and accepted that bad things happen, and will keep happening, and not amount of checks, gun controls, or vetting is going to stop it. Wed 16 Jun 2010 00:45:16 GMT+1 MrsJones22 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=81#comment232 No matter what checks are in place, if a child or vulnerable person is going to be abused the sad fact is it is going to happen. We live in a sick world, where people abuse and hurt others through illness or pleasure. As most abuse comes from family members we need to be teaching and training all staff who come into contact with vulnerable people to look for signs of this, and actually do their job in protecting them!No checks are going to be 100% safe, look at some of the cases where they have been checked, there have been policemen, judges nursery staff, nurses, the list goes on and on. Our society is not a safe one in any respect, in the family home, on the roads, in our schools and care homes. I do agree checks need to be slackened off and let people who want to volunteer help out. You cannot look at a young child now or speak to one without the feeling you are being watched for fear of being a pervert, fear breeds fear. Wed 16 Jun 2010 00:10:37 GMT+1 RadioRogerL http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=81#comment231 The BBC are just as bad. The way they blur 90% of pictures, moving or still, they clearly thing most adults are perverts. Tue 15 Jun 2010 23:42:31 GMT+1 jonnots http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=80#comment230 I have 6 CRBs. Every time I take on a new voluntary position in a school i have to get a new one. This year it took 6 months to start a computer club.The ISA system would have been like a driving licence. Available for all work with children and instantly revocable if I committed an offence. Simpler and safer - Unlike a CRB which only says I was 'clean' when I obtained it.Well done Teresa May, you have once again increased the level of unnecessary bureaucracy in England. The CRB checking firms must be rubbing their hands - they were about to go out of business. Tue 15 Jun 2010 23:31:26 GMT+1 Michelle Lenoir http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=80#comment229 This post has been Removed Tue 15 Jun 2010 22:31:59 GMT+1 Seth Redding http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=80#comment228 I recently volunteered as a teaching assistant at a school, left the school and then befriended a student who used to go to the school, there was only 5 years difference between us so I thought nothing of it. Since then, the student was discovered to be having a sexual relationship with a teacher at the school. I was told by the police that I may have had some involvement in the situation and that I was going to be investigated, I was told that I was not allowed to work with young people till the investigation was complete, this was a blow to me as I am a self employed music teacher and so lost a lot of money. Two months later I was told that there were no criminal charges against me but that my friendship with this student had been deemed "inappropriate" and that an intelligence record had been made of this that would come up every time I got a CRB.If you ask me, more needs to be done to protect adults, not children. I wish to become a primary school teacher and because of this, my chances of that are significantly reduced. I cannot sue the police for loss of earnings and my solicitor's fees so I am left with a gaping hole in my accounts that is more than a few thousand pounds. I was not a teaching assistant at the time of befriending this student and I am officially not a criminal yet I am being punished, that seems hardly fair. Tue 15 Jun 2010 22:27:34 GMT+1 James Rigby http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=79#comment227 The vetting system is a danger. It gives a false sense of security. People think "he's been checked so he's safe - no need to keep an eye on him". Rather than put everyone on a database, just have all people with relevant convictions on a database which can be interrogated by a few individuals at local education authorities or the department for education. It's the peadophiles which need to be tracked, not 11m innocent people. Tue 15 Jun 2010 22:24:42 GMT+1 Hanny http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=79#comment226 When the Soham Murders happened, there was an outcry. Why was someone working in a school that has previous convictions? A report was made that criticised the local authorities and various police forces involved with not sharing and tracking information.The coalition government is now getting rid of ContactPoint - a system designed to secure infromation at source, restrict the people who have access to information on children, make sure it is correct, and share it amongst authorities.The vetting scheme is also being scrapped. Sure, an offender who hasn't been caught yet won't have a criminal record. But many others with a criminal record for child abuse offences would have been prevented from working in places where they had ready access to children; jobs which offenders actively seek out. For what reason have these been scrapped? Because it's "inconvenient" and "takes a long time". It might "put people off" and "infringe their civil liberties". Civil liberties seem a lot more valuable than child safety and security these days.Those people who are really committed to working with children, either as volunteers or running sports clubs etc would not be put off by this process. Who wants a half-hearted person with no commitment "If you're going to treat me like that, then I won't bother" working with their children? I don't. Tue 15 Jun 2010 22:17:55 GMT+1 Susie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=79#comment225 I am delighted that the Coalition has called a halt to this proposed scheme. As a Dance teacher this would have affected me and any future employees. This scheme could never have worked. Why did not the previous Government realise that there could be many people who work with children or vulnerable adults and who behave inappropriately towards them but have not yet "been caught". These individuals would have willingly paid the £64 registration fee and would therefore have been on the "not guilty" register. I discussed this issue with my local MP as I felt so strongly about it. How much money has surely been wasted on producing the glossy information booklet about the scheme which millions of us received at the beginning of last summer. I for one would have refused to pay the £64 so I would probably have found myself out of work in the near future! I would rather have donated the money to "Childline" where, in my opinion, it would have been better spent. Tue 15 Jun 2010 21:59:32 GMT+1 KarenZ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=78#comment224 The vetting and barring scheme was unworkable. Glad to see it go. Tue 15 Jun 2010 21:48:07 GMT+1 Fry http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=78#comment223 Yet another good move from this new government. This vetting system was an over-reaction to the Soham murders (Huntley was CRB checked by the way). It was a ridiculous knee jerk reaction with little thought given to the adverse effects it would have. Tue 15 Jun 2010 21:44:13 GMT+1 joleon1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=78#comment222 This just proves that this coalition has no idea what goes on in the world...I certainly pray that their inefficiency does not result in a nutter doing his dastardly deed again...I say again that with this lot we are in a much less safe country than before May 6th Tue 15 Jun 2010 21:44:03 GMT+1 William_prunier http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=77#comment221 The whole CRB system is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In the tragic Soham murders,one police force failed to pass on information to another and, bang, down comes the hammer.I think this, like the review of health and safety laws and no win no fee lawyers, is actually something that this coalition Government is well in tune with popular opinion. As has been said, most abuse is done by a family member, how many children have actually been saved by this scheme?As to the people who say this is a cost cutting measure. Really? With you, the person, having to pay for a CRB check (or employer) and having to have a check again for moving to another part of the country or working for a different employer, it could be argued that this was actually a money making exercise for the previous Government, who, in seeing the opposition for ID cards was too high, thought that they could get a database in by the backdoor under the guise of "safeguarding." First it would have been teachers, volunteers, then people who live close to schools e.t.c e.t.c Thank goodness it appears that this seems to be being rolled back. Long live common sense. Tue 15 Jun 2010 21:42:16 GMT+1 Jeff Martin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=77#comment220 Let's get one thing perfectly straight. The vast majority of people are not paedophiles. There isn't one lurking on every street corner. Men in kids playground are almost certainly fathers, and will be looking after their children. Which is more than can be said for a lot of the mums who sit around chatting all the time ignoring their kids. I can cite an incident when a kid fell off a swing and the mother was completely oblivious until a man (being extremely brave) carried it over to her and plonked it in her lap. Abuse? you tell me who is the abuser in this case... Tue 15 Jun 2010 21:19:31 GMT+1 Marksview http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=77#comment219 This is a welcome development. The trouble with trying to check everyone is that you develop a vast bureaucracy in which those very few people who actually could be a risk can hide quite effectively and, in any case, it doesn't do anything to protect against people with no record. A better way to manage risks is to ensure there are records of those who actually are a risk and that they are effectively prevented from continuing to be a risk. That way you can concentrate on the people who need to be controlled not on alienating and offending those who only want to be helpful and make a contribution to society. Tue 15 Jun 2010 21:13:53 GMT+1 Ellis Day http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=76#comment218 I have always said that it is because of Ian Huntley that the Vetting system was brought in. And yes it is rightly so that certain individuals should not be working with our children. But I honestly believe that if someone who has a criminal record that is not related to children or any other kind of sex crime. then depending on how long ago the crime was committed, then they should have the same rights as anyone else who has a spent conviction. I massed up as a teenager, got in trouble with the police. I have been to university, have a P.G.C.E but can not get a job as a teacher because of my CRB comes back with my past convictions even though it is 31 one years ago. I am a father, a granddad and do not have any desires where children are concerned, but I can't continue to do what I love because of people like Huntley murdered two loverly girls. What about all those people out there who have committed crimes but haven't been caught, they get away with it. And let's face it they get it wrong any way. I heard of a girl who couldn't get a job because her CRB came back with a conviction of shop lifting. but she was honest as the day is long. I hope someone sees sense and gives people like me who have changed their lives around a chance. Tue 15 Jun 2010 21:07:55 GMT+1 Jeff Martin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=76#comment217 7. At 10:11am on 15 Jun 2010, Lewis Fitzroy wrote:"By this cost cutting measure, how many more children, will be abused or murder by perverts?Since 99.9% of abuse is carried out in the home or by close relatives it will have no impact whatsoever. Remember - even "vetted" people can still be abusers. Take the recent case in Devon. Tue 15 Jun 2010 20:57:00 GMT+1 William Johnson-Smith http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=76#comment216 I am so glad to see this coalition government dismantling the vestiges of New Labour. This scheme was nothing more than about controlling people, making them pay to be registered on another data base and we all know about the last goverment's record on losing data bases and wasting more money bureaucracy. Tue 15 Jun 2010 20:51:54 GMT+1 grahamjbristle http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=75#comment215 I have been CRB checked and go into schools occasionally as a volunteer: I was prepared to be registered under the new scheme to give parents peace of mind. However ... living only yards away from our local primary school I can state with confidence that children are potentially at much greater risk of harm from the school-run mums (and dads,to a lesser extent) trying to park outside the school gates and then make a quick getaway, than they are from paedophiles. Tue 15 Jun 2010 20:51:13 GMT+1 markus_uk http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=75#comment214 good! Tue 15 Jun 2010 20:46:04 GMT+1 Ellis Birt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=75#comment213 The vetting and barring scheme did have its merits. A CRB disclosure is like an MOT, valid at the time of issue only.A scheme where anyone who has had a CRB disclosure and is subsequently convicted (possibly even charged) of a relevant offence leads to the authorities contacting the organisation that applied for the disclosure would doubltless save children from abuse in the long-run. Tue 15 Jun 2010 20:32:14 GMT+1 desabled http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=74#comment212 theresa may's children are grown up are they not? granted over zealous implementation has given the idea a bad name adults going into school to help with reading lessons, parentsbeing asked to be police checked in order to collect their own children fromcubs or brownies, plainly stupidbut paedophiles must be rubbing hands with glee at the appalling open house message this givesmake it work better yes, cut the cost yet scrap it completelyyou just wa\it until the next child goes missing smelly stuff will hit the fan because MayWANTS AN EASY LIFE Tue 15 Jun 2010 20:31:48 GMT+1 SteveHG http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=74#comment211 Don't worry 'Pure-Evil' unjustified self belief is a common trait in narcissistic people along with a dis-functional moral compass. Just look to your heroes and you'll see what I mean. You are obviously in good companyOr given the evidence maybe not Tue 15 Jun 2010 20:21:28 GMT+1 true grit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=73#comment210 cost cutting at its worst. Tue 15 Jun 2010 20:07:16 GMT+1 rich http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=73#comment209 while this is a personal comment, I am both a childrens services professional and an employer of many dozens of child care workers. I am really quite annoyed that the coalition government has taken this step.I understand the debate about the scope (and therefore the expense) of this scheme, but as someone who will have to register come what may with whatever scheme is in force I wish that they had proceeded to register people in my position and my employees, limiting the reveiw to other groups. I have staff that we have been holding off reapplying for CRB checks for precisely because of this scheme (which is a vast improvement on existing checks). we know that we will have to register at some stage with this scheme as it is this scheme that will come into force for us in any case and it is difficult being messed about in a way that seems to have more to do with political presentation than the day to day needs of the professional childcare sector Tue 15 Jun 2010 20:02:09 GMT+1 Pure Evil http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=73#comment208 This post has been Removed Tue 15 Jun 2010 20:00:18 GMT+1 Jonathan http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=72#comment207 The vetting and barring scheme was typical of Labour's nanny state. Assume that anyone who will come into contact with children is a potential paedophile.Meanwhile, the man who tortured Baby P to death was getting parenting lessons, so that he could be a decent father. So the state is prepared to take a chance on this man (I suppose it's something to do with his human rights), but other people had to be screened before they worked with children.David Cameron - please note - the vast majority of adults in the UK are not child harmers or molestors - although I'm a bit worried about some parents. A woman was telling her children to behave on a bus, "If you don't sit down, I'll punch you in the mouth." But then, you don't need any qualifications or skills to be a parent. Tue 15 Jun 2010 20:00:10 GMT+1 Lynn from Sussex http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=72#comment206 To 196, it would appear that most child abuse starts in the home either from parents, siblings or close relatives. Are you suggesting that all parents, siblings, relatives and friends should be checked? Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:56:22 GMT+1 Licence payer http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=72#comment205 "how much money have the scout association had to waste on this."They only have themselves and Labour to blame. The Scouting Association pronounced itself satisfied with the scheme on 13/12/2009 http://www.scouts.org.uk/noticeboard/143/scouting-welcomes-positive-news-on-vetting-and-barring-scheme "The Scout Association now believes that the updated guidelines protect young people without being unnecessarily difficult to operate." so they can't now complain about the time or money they spent on this thing. They were all for it.The scouts would do well to remember Thomas Hamilton. The box-ticking council were happy to let him run a youth club. The Scouts, who at the time were not a box-ticking organisation, would not let him run a scout group because they thought there was something not quite right about him. The scouts were right and they should get back to using their brains rather than being all in favour of Labour box-ticking exercises. Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:44:26 GMT+1 sjleech http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=71#comment204 Could we all please realise that this scheme was not just intended for children, it was as much about vulnerable adults. Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:41:30 GMT+1 Ken pearson http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=71#comment203 i do agree with it too some point but you can't go treating every one like they are some pedo the law says incent till proven guilty not the other way round why should mum and dads pay some strainger money for a xmas play and other nice times like this i think its just another thing to get more money out of us once again me and my wife have a crb and if you have one that should be enough and this should all so let you be able to camcord your child at school trips or play which ever it may be why should we lose out just for the sake of a few bad eggs Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:36:51 GMT+1 Licence payer http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=71#comment202 "The only people who would be "put off" by the prospect of one would be someone with something to hide,"That old chestnut.Lots of people have been put off already, according to charities. Do you think they were all child abusers? Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:31:06 GMT+1 lauriesowrey http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=70#comment201 What short memories politicians have - whether it's kneee jerk how many hudreds of pieces of legislation from labour, or a silly ex chancellor rubbishing the coalition for showing him up to have deceived the nation with his storybook figures. Let's hope the new government keeps its promise of openness and frankness - something of which labour, the party of 'the people' were totally incapable. Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:30:50 GMT+1 highflyer60 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=70#comment200 It is a pity that the CRB process is not being scrapped as well, it costs millions, is parerwork for paperwork sake, without any benefit to children.It only gives employers a way out of doing proper checks themselves.You just need to look at the last few child abuse cases, they all involve people who were CRB checked!! Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:29:11 GMT+1 Joannie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=70#comment199 Well done - common sense at last! I think we should all start assuming people are generally honest and decent until they prove otherwise - or else what sort of example are we setting for our children. My kids enjoyed loads of activities with school, scouts and after school clubs but these could be denied to the kids of today if we never get any volunteers. And whatever happened to the principal of innocent until proven guilty. These rules and regulations (including CRB) don't catch the people they are aimed at - they just inconvenience the rest. Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:28:51 GMT+1 sjleech http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=69#comment198 What will happen to Bichards work, which was very live after the Soham enquiry? As a local Authority we have expanded many resources to implement this when we are instructed to make "efficiencies". How efficient is pulling a scheme, years into the making with just 5 weeks to go? Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:25:34 GMT+1 Bradford http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=69#comment197 Good. The old system really went too far. It was all part of Labour's nanny state which was seriously flawed. The state simply cannot control everything, all it meant was the growth of a tick box culture to cover the backs of unnecessary public sector workers. Safety of children was not increased by this bureaucratic exercise. All that is needed is to give ordinary people freedom to use common sense without falling foul of political correctness. Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:25:18 GMT+1 Deb http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=69#comment196 The scheme was an over reaction when it was set up and should be abolished.What would have been better for everyone would have been a clear directive as to the procedure to be followed in the event of reports of abuse, so there should be a central database of such reports and the outcome. Staff of chidren's homes and church people who have covered up reports should be on the database too so their word will always be doubted.In other words a more intelligent use of information should be made and the person's concerned should be told they are on the register so they too should have a clear procedure to "clear" their names if appropriate. Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:14:07 GMT+1 ziggyboy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=68#comment195 If this is the ConDems giving people back their independence then god help us all. This legislation was introduced to try and tackle the problem of child abuse.If people are willing to have anyone to look after their children then on their own heads be it.If I were a parenet in today's society I would want to know everything about an individual who was taking care of my offspring. Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:13:08 GMT+1 michaela http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=68#comment194 I think the vetting and barring scheme should go ahead but bring the price down to £5.00. I have been abused since the age of 2 by my real dad. I am a very protective mother to my daughter if anything happened to her I will not forgive myself. Every single foster parents has to be vetted every time when a child comes in their care and all the schools should be vetted when they have people coming to have interviews for a job. From Michaela Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:08:39 GMT+1 Kristal Tips http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=67#comment193 166. At 5:26pm on 15 Jun 2010, Tony Fisher wrote:Well done to the Coalition. At last we have people with commonsense in power. I won't have to fill in ever more CRB checks for everything I do (despite being a teacher who is checked as part of my job). If the previous Government had had a central register of CRB checks so you only had to complete one form it would have been bearable, but the endless duplication (and subsequent waste of time and money) was scandalous.Yes you will! The ISA was actually meant to reduce duplication - you register once and once only. CRB will carry on as before - therefore, one for your teaching job, one for your part-time taxi work, one for helping with the scouts, one for helping at a children's club etc etc. CRBs also need repeating every 3 years. The cancellation of ISAs does nothing to reduce your paperwork, or the continual costs of separate CRBs. Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:06:22 GMT+1 deinos http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=67#comment192 I have worked for over 40 years in the voluntary sector despite having convictions for trivial offences involving children. I have never raised my hand to a child and can not foresee any situation where I might, but I have often seen parents kicking, punching and beating their children (as indeed happened to me - that is why I am deaf in one ear)- I have never dropped a bomb on a child or chopped up a baby in its mother's womb, even though these abuses are sanctioned by the State. I think this vetting and barring scheme is a complete and utter waste of public money. It would not stop determined abusers from gaining access to children and it would create a whole new realm of cybercrime which would put even more children at risk of abuse. Tue 15 Jun 2010 19:04:39 GMT+1 hillbill http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=67#comment191 Glad to see this moronic and intrusive system being pulled up. It's another good example the previous government's automatic urge to reach for the bureaucratic blunderbus to deal with any problem. Everyone peppered expensively, but the main targets unlikely to receive a full blast. They didn't care about CRB expense, who foots it, whether it's proportionate, burdonsome or effective and no, of course, no concern either shown for the integrity of anyone within its sights. It's good to move on. Tue 15 Jun 2010 18:59:33 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=66#comment190 What we might do instead - forget that we used to sneer at curtain twitchers and neighbours who went nextdoor to find out what was going on. Now we're too embarrassed, it's not our business, someone else will sort it out.Parents genuinely concerned for their children are not going to be upset that someone is looking out for them.Then if police and social workers follow up complaints as a priority, will we get somewhere?Remember the days when adults would confront children they didn't know - "What are you doing?" Most of them, however fierce they appeared, were genuinely concerned.I am just not convinced that procedures such as vetting really work, but they may give a false sense of security. Of course there have to be checks in place. But where do they stop?Post 56 is well worth a read. Tue 15 Jun 2010 18:52:24 GMT+1 Wrinklyoldgit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=66#comment189 Is vetting and barring scheme needed? No-one doubts that there are odd people in the world, we have all voted in some really odd ones in our time, but it was a NuLabour knee jerk reaction that brought in the vetting laws.A number of parents ran a school tuckshop, the profits were used to pay for school outings and hire buses - under the laws, today each parent would have had to be vetted, the delivery drivers would have needed vetting, the vehicle rental company mechanics and drivers would have needed vetting, the emergency breakdown persons who fixed breakdowns would have needed vetting, the recycling pickup crews collecting the cardboard and softdrink bottles would have needed vetting.All this assumed the vetting people had been properly vetted.Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Tue 15 Jun 2010 18:51:54 GMT+1 stevie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=66#comment188 I was talking to some elderly ladies the other day and they said that forty years ago you didn't hear the word "paedofile", I had to remind them that many of the cases of abuse by paedofile priests etc. were carried out as long as forty years ago. Unfortunately the evidence that is now coming to light does cry out for some sort of vetting scheme to as far as possible eliminate such goings on in future. This latest action by the home secretary tends to look a little bit like sweeping it under the carpet and hoping it goes away. Tue 15 Jun 2010 18:44:54 GMT+1 Coinneach http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=65#comment187 Some facts: most serious abuse to children is carried out by family members or family friends.Many people are unaware there are no professionally documented cases of a serious abusing paedophile being "cured" of their condition. They remain dangerous, and that's why their whereabouts are supposed to be continually monitored.Everyone who works with children and vulnerable adults already has to undergo an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check(normally). These checks are not transferable, so have to be undertaken again even if e.g. they move to a school down the road. They do rely on the employer ensuring suitable references are given and checked out properly. This was not done in the case of Ian Huntly along with some police intelligence failures. Everyone should bear in mind that all a CRB check and a registration with the proposed Vetting and Barring database does is give a snapshot of the situation at that time. It will NOT stop someone abusing a child or vulnerable adult, or prevent the employment of someone who has abused children and adults and has not yet been caught.In terms of child and vulnerable adult safety, there is and can be no substitute for adopting best practice (continually reviewed) to ensure all is done that reasonably can be done to create a safe and secure environment for children, vulnerable adults and the adults who work with them. Teachers and youth workers etc need protection from false allegations and violence as well.The original proposal for vetting and barring suggested that around 11.5 million adults would have their personal details and criminal records kept on a government database. All prospective employers would have power to access that database, and failure to follow the complicated procedures would be a criminal offence at every stage. However, it relies completely on employers taking up references. There is no key data segement, e.g. passport number, bio data etc to cross reference against. Since there are already many millions more National Insurance numbers than workers, the Government knows it cannot use these. So straightaway, an intelligent paedophile (and most of them are) will work out how to beat the system. I will not provide further details.In my view the vetting and barring system, far from making children and vulnerable adults safer, will, by its sheer complexity and volume of peoples details held make it more likely that children and others might be harmed. For this and many other reasons, I welcome the government's halt and review on vetting and barring and feel that enhanced CRB check + references, + best practice is sufficient. It is the responsibility of the police service to ensure that those suspected or found guilty of abusing a child are held on a dedicated database easily accessible when CRB checks are made and also available to those whose task it is to track known paedophiles. It is the responsbility of social services to make sure that those children and vulnerable adults "at risk" are protected from those who are trying to harm them.The problem is, that if you are submerged by huge amounts of data and burdened with ever changing complex legislation and workload, you can't see the wood for the trees. This results in children and others getting abused and even murdered. Tue 15 Jun 2010 18:40:23 GMT+1 Wrinklyoldgit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=65#comment186 The workers movements of the UK were founded to protect workers against exploitation and repression of owners of the mills and mines, from these movements grew the Labour Party, which in turn grew into NuLabour which had the same fundamentalist mill & mine owner paranoia of needing to control the workers. The wheel had turned full circle.Under the coalition the wheel of oppression and repression is being turned back, hopefully we can start here and move on to scrapping the CCTV tax cameras, roll back the all-pervasive snooping into bins of the jobsworths in councils, and roll back the police state where everyone is assumed guilty (unless later proved otherwise) in order to meet NuLabour targets. Tue 15 Jun 2010 18:40:11 GMT+1 Maria Townley http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=65#comment185 At last some common sense! Yes I also welcome a review of this scheme.I worked as a dedicated-EquityUnion cardholding Children's entertainer for 20 years and at first all that was required was a visit to a police station, where for £10 they would check their computer data base and give you written proof that you held no criminal record. In recent years it has become increasingly difficult to obtain this unless you are part of a larger organisation i.e social services etc. Equity always advises entertainers to insist that at least one other adult is present at all times( this is for our protection!) Most of our work was carried out in church halls and community centres, which if you intend to use music for games or background may also require a licence now. The vetting system coupled with the complicated licence requirement has put a lot of parents off from bookings and a generation of children are going to miss out on the thrill of performing magic or suchlike with a professional entertainer who has been booked especially for their event- because many, many of the professionals like myself can no longer continue. The winners in this are the leisure centres and fastfood restaurants who can provide a whole package- food, rented space ...and usually an undertrained teenager with no idea of health and safety issues thrown in. There has to be a happy medium surely, between these new rules and the preservation of the joys of childhood. Tue 15 Jun 2010 18:24:05 GMT+1 Phoenix http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/is_vetting_and_barring_scheme.html?page=64#comment184 Mrs Theresa May states, and I quote, "You were assumed to be guilty until you were proven innocent, and told you were able to work with children".I am sorry Mrs May, but by the time someone has been found guilty,the damage has been already done and a child has been harmed, abused or killed.This scheme may be top heavy, draconian or whatever, but nothing should be left to cahnce when it comes to protecting children from abuse. Tue 15 Jun 2010 18:21:59 GMT+1