criminal record- does this mean they cant work with children

sharkie

She has broken societies rules and should never be trusted with any job again - for life. Her crime is more serious than murder.

Because she did this heinous crime13 years ago, she she be made to also wear a t-shirt for life, advertising her crime. If we tie a rock around her, submerge her in a lake and after half an hour, if she is still breathing, we can proclaim her as a witch too! Thank heavens we are a christian based society and believe in forgiveness and turning the other cheek.

In reality every one with points on their drivers license has committed a far greater offense to children, child safety and disrespect for the law and community, especially compared to the above convict.

What does society want or demand and the hoops one has to jump through for these pees-poor-paying jobs. Politicians, mismanage, lie, claim and steal £1000's and rarely even loose their jobs (bar a token minority that become a real embarrassment). Embezzle millions correctly and you have a good chance of walking away.

What has letting her boyfriend sleeping over and lying on a form got to do with child safety, or was her boyfriend under age?

On the good side CRB checks are making us people whom escaped evasion a much better job prospect, could be worth more £ to society.

Ye who judge, just be aware of glasshouses and throwing stones - and yes I do have no blemished on my CRB - yet! I would not tell people of this crime as it is not relevant to the job, or confess in my youth I was a litter lout!

Political correctness and common sense gone wrong drives me crazy!

woody01

junkmayle wrote: »

Exactly what I said earlier. Come on Woody01 - explain to everyone in clear English why this woman is somehow a 'risk' to anyones kids. I would rather have someone who committed fraud years ago than an obviously unstable teacher, 'approved' by the CRB, that could cave my kids head in with a metal weight. CRB checks are totally worthless really and are there to serve a bloated beaurocracy, bleed money from already under-rescourced groups, and many peoples inability to accept that no-one is perfect. PolishBigSpender is right. UK society is sick. Only when you have lived abroad, even for just a few months, and returned do you see what he/she means.

I am not saying whether or not she would be a risk to children.
What i AM saying though is she is clearly not a trustworthy person, so why employ someone that is dishonest over someone that hasn't had their integrity questioned in court?

woody01

junkmayle wrote: »

Im still waiting for anyone to clearly explain how the OP friends 13 year old conviction for benefit fraud puts any child at 'risk' and to clearly state what they would be at 'risk' of. There seems to be many that will say she is a 'risk' but cannot articulate why or how? If you are one of those many, maybe you need to have a long hard think about why you have fallen for the goverment myth that anyone without a 'clean' CRB is a 'risk' and ask yourself the true purpose of the ever widening list of jobs that 'need' a CRB.

You just dont get it do you?

Its NOTHING to do with what she actually did.

She has commited fraud, and in doing to so, has proved she is NOT trustworthy.

junkmayle

Thanks for replying Shel but following your logic then EVERY job should require a CRB check, shouldnt it? I also note that you (and everyone else ) qualifies your statement that the lady is not 'necessarily' a risk to children. Suggests to me you think she may be. Would you be happy if this lady delivered your post? No CRB check there. Would you be happy if this lady was working in your banks call centre? No CRB check there either. You also use the sentence 'This is what establishes you would not do this whilst in employment' How exactly does a CRB check predict future events? Did the teacher who attacked the kid in science class have a clean CRB? How was this kid 'safeguarded'? The govt may not explicitly state that anyone with an unclean CRB is a risk but it is covertly suggested. There was a case recently where the mother of a disabled child was not allowed on a school bus to check thier safety belt as she had not been CRB checked.

Woody01 - You clearly asked 'Would you want this woman around your children' This implies that you think she is a 'risk'. Articulate how she is and what the kids are at risk of. What about that man who has a criminal record for leaving his bin lid up 4 inches? Would you want him around your kids? Do you believe that this woman should never work again? Does this apply to everyone with a criminal record? If so, put in plenty of overtime so that your taxes can fund me and all the other undesirables to sit on our !!!!!! doing nothing so you can be surrounded by the whiter than white like yourself. Like Ive said before Woody01, lets hope no-one makes a false allegation against you lest you becomed stained forever like the rest of us.

[Deleted User]

You just dont get it do you?

Past behaviour can assit in predicting future behaviour, with a valid explanation risk assesment may show no likelyhood of similar future behaviour. If you were willing to explain, which you quite obviously are not.

Yes she may be a a risk if she where to given access to sensitive personal data on vulnerable young people and and misuse it for personal gain. Though with a valid explanation, "i was young, irresponsible, nieve etc etc" can show theres not a likely pattern or intent of that type of behavour and they get the job, again the type of thing risk assors make a decision on.

Qouting spiel from the daily mail or tosh from the star does not make it fact. Sensationalised media stories are just that, there to pull you in so you buy their c**p. If I told you if you picked your nose you could not work with kids would you believe that, No, so why believe what the DM prints.

If you want to be forever fighting against the world go for it. If it makes you feel better to think the government has it in for you and is 'staining you forever' and has classified you 'undesirable' go for it. Take a chill pill and cheer up, the world does not have it in for you.

As has already been explained by several people having a criminal record DOES NOT exclude you from working with vulnerable people. It does mean you will have to explain yourself.

junkmayle

Shel - Just answer the question. Do you think that OP friends 13 year old benefit fraud conviction puts any child at that club at risk? If yes, then state clearly what they are at risk of. You mentioned about access to sensitive personal info to use for personal gain. Considering that the club will hold kids name and parents contact details at most, can you explain to everyone a plausible scenario that could arise, based on your concerns or not?

Savvy_Sue

junkmayle wrote: »

Im still waiting for anyone to clearly explain how the OP friends 13 year old conviction for benefit fraud puts any child at 'risk' and to clearly state what they would be at 'risk' of. There seems to be many that will say she is a 'risk' but cannot articulate why or how? If you are one of those many, maybe you need to have a long hard think about why you have fallen for the goverment myth that anyone without a 'clean' CRB is a 'risk' and ask yourself the true purpose of the ever widening list of jobs that 'need' a CRB.

I don't think a 13 year old conviction for benefit fraud does make someone a risk to children, BUT see below.

woody01 wrote: »

You just dont get it do you?

Its NOTHING to do with what she actually did.

She has commited fraud, and in doing to so, has proved she is NOT trustworthy.

No, she has proved that 13 years ago she was not trustworthy. So 12 years ago I might not have wanted to employ her, because for all I know she was being coerced or manipulated by her boyfriend at the time, and he might still be in a position to do this.

However, that is where I would make a judgement, confidentially, with one other person, about whether a particular person's record made them unsuitable to work in our setting at that particular time. If the potential employee isn't willing to give the information we need to make that judgement (and no, I won't know whether they are being truthful or not) then we won't be willing to take that risk.

And here's a hypothetical scenario: someone is working with children. They are in an abusive relationship, coerced and controlled by someone else. They have already been 'done' for benefit fraud, although this was some time ago so the childcare setting took the risk.

However the controlling party in the relationship spots a way of making money, by selling photographs of children. The controlled party has access to children, and can take photographs without questions being asked.

Do you see where I'm going with this? I have no idea if this is what happened, btw, but it's why I would want to know about the circumstances of the first offence, and what had changed since then.

And I say again, I personally would probably be OK with employing such a person, I most definitely do NOT think that a blank CRB = 'safe', and nor do I think that a CRB with things on = 'unsafe'.

DKLS

_shel wrote: »

CRB's dont just apply to working with children. It also applies to working with vulnerable adults, even indirectly and sensitve data in relation to both. Our admin who never have contact with kids have them done as do the IT dept, caretakers etc

I see your point, however I dont work with vulnerable adults either!.
I do have access to confidential data, but that is covered by the official secrets act.
So I cant honestly see how the CRB relates to my role in any way.

eamon

We have had CRB checks for 10 or more years now. We still have child abuse & abuse of vulnerable adults. I would suggest that CRB checks have failed.

junkmayle

Sue - Your hypothetical scenario shows the total failure of CRB checks in the Little Teds nursery case. I think its a little far fetched to imagine that anyone would confess to a potential employer that they are in an abusive relationship. Also, same scenario except that CRB is 'clean'. Total failure ala Little Teds again. But because of peoples hysteria over child protection and the governments covert implications that unless your CRB is clean, you are some sort of 'risk', many have been lulled into a false sense of security with CRBs. Like I stated before, spent convictions should be wiped. Habitual criminals would carry on offending, therefore would show unspent conviction(s) or be in prison where they probably belong, and one-off offenders would be able to move on in thier lives after the conviction is spent. The system as it is now is deeply flawed and needs a total overhaul.