Topic: panorama tonight

While I do agree with your sentiments, Chris, (and yes, it is the only thing we have) I reckon the whole thing has gone way over the top, and would be amazed if it has thrown up ONE paedo. They are a bit cleverer than that.

Of course not - they would refuse to be checked wouldnt they. Or they would only take positions where they were not required to be checked.

Lets be honest here the CRB system we have for the BMFA was never designed as a which hunt process and in all probability would never catch a paedophile - but the fact that we do check WILL make it more likly they will hunt somewhere else were children gather and they DONT check.

All this stamping your feet with indignation doesnt help one jot and i'd go further it only helps the peadophiles.

But your right though it doesnt catch anyone - a few Satuday night executions live on all channels would certainly thin the numbers a little if nothing else.

Chris

All this stamping your feet with indignation doesnt help one jot and i'd go further it only helps the peadophiles.

Excellent point well made.

J

I would trust them more than someone who hadnt been checked. I do that everyday, all those with kids do when we send our kids to school, when they go on school trips, when my kids go on trips organised by the young carers association, i dont know all these people, but i feel more comftable knowing they all have been checked and cleared.

Thats a good point Maz, and answers my query. I better get it done, just hope my ex-missus hasnt made an accusation against me.......

All this stamping your feet with indignation doesnt help one jot and i'd go further it only helps the peadophiles.

Unlike you stamping your feet and claiming that anyone disagreeing with you "helps the paedophiles" which does helps nothing except probably to make you feel nice and smug :(.

It's accusations like that flying round that make it very obvious that this is not a workable solution for anything except allowing the government to claim that they said they'd do something and this is something.

Still I suppose you could argue that it's already working really well. I now know quite a few people who children and vulnerable adults are completely safe from because they're no longer going to have anything to do with them. The fact that the children and vulnerable adults would have been just as safe if these people were still doing all the volunteer jobs they used to do (some of them for many years) is apparently not the point. The old folks can surely find their own way to the hospitals, the shops etc. and the kiddies can watch telly or hang around in the street, they don't need volunteer drivers, youth club and scout helpers etc.

Steve

Unlike you stamping your feet and claiming that anyone disagreeing with you "helps the paedophiles" which does helps nothing except probably to make you feel nice and smug :(.

Still I suppose you could argue that it's already working really well. I now know quite a few people who children and vulnerable adults are completely safe from because they're no longer going to have anything to do with them. The fact that the children and vulnerable adults would have been just as safe if these people were still doing all the volunteer jobs they used to do (some of them for many years) is apparently not the point. The old folks can surely find their own way to the hospitals, the shops etc. and the kiddies can watch telly or hang around in the street, they don't need volunteer drivers, youth club and scout helpers etc.

Noo but i what way can "not" checking people help ? I'd be facinated by your answer ?

By your argument then you'd be happy to let your kids be worked with by people who have never been checked ?? 

Chris

Noo but i what way can "not" checking people help ? I'd be facinated by your answer ?

By your argument then you'd be happy to let your kids be worked with by people who have never been checked ?? 

Chris

I think that the argument is that the CRB checks are not actually going to make kids safer, not that I can think of anything better to replace it with!

I think that the argument is that the CRB checks are not actually going to make kids safer, not that I can think of anything better to replace it with!

That really isn't the case, it would be true to say it doesn't guarantee their safety, no check can, it does however have to make them safer.

Regards - J

That really isn't the case, it would be true to say it doesn't guarantee their safety, no check can, it does however have to make them safer.

No it doesn't have to make anyone safer. You're just making an assumption with no proof whatsoever.

The ISA barring scheme (it's not just CRB checks anymore) might possibly stop people who would otherwise be a danger. Or it might stop people who would be no danger at all. We don't know. My guess is it'll do a lot more of the latter but it is just a guess.

It's odd really. Generally people round here assume that anything this Government has thought up will probably be a bit of a disaster but just mention the safety of children and/or vulnerable adults and all of a sudden what they're doing must be all for the best and bound to be a good thing. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that, incompetents who couldn't run the proverbial in a brewery don't suddenly become genuises just because their intentions are good. Remember what the road to hell is paved with :(.

Steve

......The ISA barring scheme (it's not just CRB checks anymore) might possibly stop people who would otherwise be a danger. Or it might stop people who would be no danger at all. We don't know. My guess is it'll do a lot more of the latter but it is just a guess........

Just about everything in life is a compromise, as is the new ISA vetting and barring scheme.
Has anyone got a better idea?
If not we just have to make the best of what is coming.

Dick

No it doesn't have to make anyone safer. You're just making an assumption with no proof whatsoever.

The poster I replied to said "I think that the argument is that the CRB checks are not actually going to make kids safer"

Could you please explain exactly how CRB checking won't make kids safer? Anyone with a criminal record will have their history disclosed to a potential employer such as a school, just how can that alone NOT make it safer for kids?

Puzzled.

J

J

The poster I replied to said "I think that the argument is that the CRB checks are not actually going to make kids safer"

Could you please explain exactly how CRB checking won't make kids safer? Anyone with a criminal record will have their history disclosed to a potential employer such as a school, just how can that alone NOT make it safer for kids?

Puzzled.

so someone who, in his past, had a conviction for affray (for instance) wont be able to work with kids. That does not make them safer. Once a child abuser is found out, yes, he wont be able to get a job with kids, but most of them dont get found out until it is too late. A lot of people who have had a checkered youth will be barred, even though they are no threat whatsoever to kids. Its the same knee-jerk reaction which cost us the sport of shooting after Hungerford. A few individuals causing everybody to suffer.

so someone who, in his past, had a conviction for affray (for instance) wont be able to work with kids. That does not make them safer. Once a child abuser is found out, yes, he wont be able to get a job with kids, but most of them dont get found out until it is too late. A lot of people who have had a checkered youth will be barred, even though they are no threat whatsoever to kids. Its the same knee-jerk reaction which cost us the sport of shooting after Hungerford. A few individuals causing everybody to suffer.

Your logic re working with kids doesn't add up Bob.

The shooting ban was as a result of the Cullen inquiry into the Dunblane massacre & can hardly be labelled as a knee-jerk reaction.

Yeah? It really worked, didnt it? Every legal owner of a gun had to give it up, while the influx of guns into britain has carried on. I live in Nottingham, where guns are easy to get hold of. Now there are more illegal guns than there ever were legal ones.

Yeah? It really worked, didnt it? Every legal owner of a gun had to give it up, while the influx of guns into britain has carried on. I live in Nottingham, where guns are easy to get hold of. Now there are more illegal guns than there ever were legal ones.

Whether it worked or not isn't the point. The fact that it wasn't a knee jerk reaction is.

However since we haven't had an attempt at a mass murder by a mentally deranged gunman with easy access to guns & ammunition since, then possibly it has worked.  

So will we end up with all the people with CRB's flying Sunday Morning and people without Sunday Afternoon?or will it be if you don't have a CRB you can't fly at this field/club?

My problems is if you have a class room full of kids and one adult you want that adult checked,...rightly so as i want my kids safe too.

But if you are down the flying field with say 20 people flying and one with a CRB and a child learning to fly how the hell is the one person meant to look after this kid? could be football/swiming anything.

i'm just saying if one has to have it then to make the child safe we all must have it!

 that is the only way to make sure the kid is safe.

Or they just don't go to the flying field, that would be a shame it will be something eles they will miss out on.

Please note it is not just men that abuse children it can be "anyone" we all need to look out for our children

From what I gather from a Scoutmaster who is a club member, as long as you have someone there who is CRB checked that is sufficient.

From what I gather from a Scoutmaster who is a club member, as long as you have someone there who is CRB checked that is sufficient.

from what i gathered from chris(brand1068) it was manny wilson at the bmfa that stated instructors have  to have crb and this condition was imposed by the insurance. But from what i gather other clubs in the area are still working on parents must accompany minors

Thats what we do at the moment, but I gather that will not be enough in the future. (although how much more careful you can be than having a parent there I fail to see.)

Thats what we do at the moment, but I gather that will not be enough in the future. (although how much more careful you can be than having a parent there I fail to see.)

my point exactly Bob and why i think the hole thing is a load of b0110x

my point exactly Bob and why i think the hole thing is a load of b0110x

well, in this case its a matter of just going along with it. If they can find something in my murky past to ban me from instructing then I can get some flying done....

from what i gathered from chris(brand1068) it was manny wilson at the bmfa that stated instructors have  to have crb and this condition was imposed by the insurance. But from what i gather other clubs in the area are still working on parents must accompany minors

All I've seen from the insurance point-of-view is that clubs have to have a "Children and Vulnerable Adults" policy, otherwise the insurance won't cover any claims in the area of abuse of children/vulnerable adults.  Has that changed?

Interesting debate, I would have watched the program, but then I realised who was presenting/ wrote it. Anyone who's listened to Jeremy Vines show will know exactly what I'm talking about.

Thomas Hamilton ran a youth group and was a former scout leader. Does that name ring any bells ? He executed 16 children  and there teacher as she tried to protect them in Dunblane primary school.

CRB checks may not have stopped this, but there have been failing since then that have led to murder, most notably Ian Huntly.

All I've seen from the insurance point-of-view is that clubs have to have a "Children and Vulnerable Adults" policy, otherwise the insurance won't cover any claims in the area of abuse of children/vulnerable adults.  Has that changed?

it would be nice if someone from the BMFA would come along and comment

All I've seen from the insurance point-of-view is that clubs have to have a "Children and Vulnerable Adults" policy, otherwise the insurance won't cover any claims in the area of abuse of children/vulnerable adults.  Has that changed?

As far as I am aware that is the current position.

As far as I am aware that is the current position.

now this is getting confusing  . does or does not the current rule that most clubs have adopted surfice

ie children and vulnerable adults must be accompanied by parent / carer or do clubs need to go down the crb route

it would be nice if someone from the BMFA would come along and comment

I recently read a copy of RCM&E from a few years back, where Alex Whittaker's column was a quite extended rant at the BMFA about this very subject.

As I recall he was asking the BMFA to provide their reasoning for all the child protection policies & the assumed distribution of pedophiles among the modelling community.

Was any form of answer ever published, or was he 'nobbled' & told to let it lie?

I recently read a copy of RCM&E from a few years back, where Alex Whittaker's column was a quite extended rant at the BMFA about this very subject.

As I recall he was asking the BMFA to provide their reasoning for all the child protection policies & the assumed distribution of pedophiles among the modelling community.

Was any form of answer ever published, or was he 'nobbled' & told to let it lie?

Yup I well remember AW spouting even more than his usual load of ill-informed twaddle.  

now this is getting confusing  . does or does not the current rule that most clubs have adopted surfice

ie children and vulnerable adults must be accompanied by parent / carer or do clubs need to go down the crb route

You would need to speak to either Manny or David Phipps to get a definitive answer to that, I believe it does but I could be wrong. Having said that just follow the recommendations from the BMFA it costs nothing and they are so easy to follow it's not worth worrying about.

Banning hand guns was very much a knee jerk reaction. Please bear in mind that the Chief Constable had been advised by numerous people that Hamilton should have his licence revoked and then at renewal he was again told that Hamilton was not fit to have a firearms licence. The renewal went through, the rest is history. The fact remains that the system would have worked if the people who were running it in that particular neck of the woods hadn't ignored the very sort of information that they are supposed to at least investigate.

CRB checks are maybe a good idea for adults who supervise children, Ian Huntley of Soham murders fame had a prior conviction for child abuse but guess what, he had changed his name. So the checks of the day didn't discover his real name. Does the CRB check look at fingerprint records?

I recently read a copy of RCM&E from a few years back, where Alex Whittaker's column was a quite extended rant at the BMFA about this very subject.

As I recall he was asking the BMFA to provide their reasoning for all the child protection policies & the assumed distribution of pedophiles among the modelling community.

Was any form of answer ever published, or was he 'nobbled' & told to let it lie?

I seem to remember that and thought at the time it was a rather pointless rant and was wondering if he had nothing else to fill the page with. The insurers told the BMFA they would not cover anything relating to child welfare if a club doesn't have a policy in place. The BMFA came up with recommendations that clubs could take and adapt to their situations, and organised the ablitly to do the CRB checking at no cost to those checked (usually costs individuals about £80 I think)

 The reasoning was simply the insurers demanded it. It would be very naive to assume that out of 36000 members there arent a few "dodgy" characters. This was all in the BMFA news at the time, I don't think Alex Whittakers "rant" warranted a response.

A certain Medical Doctor would have passed the CRB and ISA vetting 

This form of vetting just might help in some very small way in a factual sense. It can, does, and will generate a false sense of security among the populace. An awful lot of Teachers have already greatly reduced thier interactive role with the pupils due to the attitude of ... och just lock the door after switching the light off on your way out.

By the way, smaller class sizes mean more possible ill-intentioned adults with contact, so lets increase the class sizes and decrease the risk.

so someone who, in his past, had a conviction for affray (for instance) wont be able to work with kids.

Why not? Thats NOT how CRB works, your potential employer gets to see your offences and can then consider the position whether to offer you the job or not.

That does not make them safer. Once a child abuser is found out, yes, he wont be able to get a job with kids,

So that WOULD make them safer which is the point I was making.

but most of them dont get found out until it is too late.

A bit like a speed camera or breathalyser, you need to break the law first, thats how it works.

A lot of people who have had a checkered youth will be barred, even though they are no threat whatsoever to kids.

Not so in my experience but will be when the ISA gets going.

Its the same knee-jerk reaction which cost us the sport of shooting after Hungerford. A few individuals causing everybody to suffer.

I haven't suferred in the slightest, hand guns are for one thing and one thing only, they serve no useful purpose. FWIW I would have had them stored at Police shooting ranges and used theire only, way too dangerous to have out in public places.

J

Why not? Thats NOT how CRB works, your potential employer gets to see your offences and can then consider the position whether to offer you the job or not.

Just for the record no one in your club gets to see anything more than the CRB certificate, they do not get to see anything that may be on your record.

Banning hand guns was very much a knee jerk reaction. Please bear in mind that the Chief Constable had been advised by numerous people that Hamilton should have his licence revoked and then at renewal he was again told that Hamilton was not fit to have a firearms licence. The renewal went through, the rest is history. The fact remains that the system would have worked if the people who were running it in that particular neck of the woods hadn't ignored the very sort of information that they are supposed to at least investigate.

CRB checks are maybe a good idea for adults who supervise children, Ian Huntley of Soham murders fame had a prior conviction for child abuse but guess what, he had changed his name. So the checks of the day didn't discover his real name. Does the CRB check look at fingerprint records?

I think the handgun issue is getting off the topic thread.

I also think you have a number of facts wrong regards Huntley. He had no prior convictions for child abuse (I don't think he had any prior convictions), CRB will pick up AKAs, the Lincolnshire(?) police wrongly used the Data Protection Act which is why information on him didn't get passed on.

By the way, smaller class sizes mean more possible ill-intentioned adults with contact, so lets increase the class sizes and decrease the risk.

that i dont agree with, class sizes are alreay big enough.. you can already get 25/30 kids in a class.. and you want more??

smaller class sizes means any problems with a child can be picked up easier as the teacher will have more time to notice these things. Plus there can be less disruption.when my 8 yr old was in a class of 25 when she was 5/6 the teacher kept telling me there were no probs..running battle i had with that school..to the point where they told me, she was up to speed in one neeting..then finally they admitted she wasnt. Now look where she is, in a class of about 10/15.. and all the problems she has were picked up literally within a couple of weeks after she started her school she is in now.

There arent enough teachers as it is, so your proposal for bigger class sizes, will mean the children and the teachers will suffer.

Just for the record no one in your club gets to see anything more than the CRB certificate, they do not get to see anything that may be on your record.

So are you saying that CRB checks done by a club are different to ones done by an employer?

J

Im assuming he means the checks are the same... just that not everyone in the club would get to find out that i nicked a box of creme eggs when i was younger. 

Im assuming..and correct me if im wrong... that the BMFA would get to see if there was anything untoward on the check, and would then inform the club?? and that all that is sent to the club is the cert saying yeah he/she is ok?? as im assuming that it is the BMFA that does the check, and not the club as such?? and that the club itself doesnt get the results of the check? and im also assuming that if someone fails the check..then the club is only informed of the fail and not why??

if that is the case, does that go with all clubs like scouts/guides etc?? the pack doesnt get to see..but headoffice does and then they decide if something on the check is livable with or not.. as in.. a warning for drunk and disorderly or something??

i could be barking up the wrong tree here mind though.

Im assuming he means the checks are the same... just that not everyone in the club would get to find out that i nicked a box of creme eggs when i was younger. 

Im assuming..and correct me if im wrong... that the BMFA would get to see if there was anything untoward on the check, and would then inform the club?? and that all that is sent to the club is the cert saying yeah he/she is ok?? as im assuming that it is the BMFA that does the check, and not the club as such?? and that the club itself doesnt get the results of the check? and im also assuming that if someone fails the check..then the club is only informed of the fail and not why??

You assume correctly!

You assume correctly!

So someone in the club will get to know rather than noone as you stated?

In an employment situation your record comes back to the employer stating cautions and convictions with details etc.

J

So someone in the club will get to know rather than noone as you stated?

No, I believe only someone at the BMFA sees the details. They make the decision as to whether anything in there means you should be barred and they pass on just the decision to the club.

That's quite often how it works currently when checks are done through an umbrella organisation. Head office see the return and pass on just a decision to the branch or individual club. No-one in the club sees any details of convictions/warnings etc. they just get told "Mr. X seems O.k." or "Mr. X - maybe not". So your club is just told there's something dodgy about you but not what.

In some organisations if the check isn't completely clear  the details are passed on for the branch/club to make their own decision but it sounds like Big A is saying the BMFA don't do that. I'm not sure if that's better than the club seeing the details or not .

Steve