criminal record- does this mean they cant work with children

[Deleted User]

eamon wrote: »

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.

Indeed we still have people managing to get jobs working with children only to abuse them. CRB's only work if the person has previously been caught. We can never stop this type of activity, we can only hope that people who know or suspect someone is abusing another person, child or adult, does the right thing and reports it.
And that the police, social services and CEOP are working hard to catch these people.

The stats are frighteningly high for the amount of people who say they suspected or knew something after a person is caught for abuse but they did nothing about it. Something I can not quite get my head around, why would anyone not say anything or try to stop it?

[Deleted User]

junkmayle wrote: »

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.

Spent convictions should be wiped are you mad? I work with child sex abusers, young people who have committed hideous acts of violence and exploitation of others. At 18 they are spent convictions you belive their records should be wiped, we should allow them to work with young children?

Any suggestions on how to improve the current system?

junkmayle

Shel - Glad you outed yourself. I suspected by your language in #26 and your total avoidance in answering my questions to you in #27 that you are part of the child protection industry. I, however, am happy to answer yours. First of all, dont simply view convictions as spent just because someone reaches 18. The rehabilitation period for the offences you are probably referring to are 10 years, maybe more. Maybe these people should be in prison anyway. Chance of staying out of trouble that length of time must be small, so these offences WOULD show on a CRB. If an individual DOES remain out of trouble after so long then maybe they HAVE sorted themselves out. Now, answer my question to you in #27. I dont believe you are unwilling to answer, simply unable. If so, have the guts to stand up and say so. Are you one of the hysterical handwringers so prevalent in your industry who seem to be forever saying 'the children are at risk' and yet, when asked to state why or how, you resemble a fish on dry land, mouth opening and closing but nothing coming out? Anyway, read ALL of my posts. There is a sentence AFTER 'spent convictions should be wiped' which answers the question I have just answered again. You have totally ignored the point of the teacher half killing the pupil and the Little Teds incident. I will make a prediction about you though. If you even reply, instead of answering my question, you will probably make a personal attack on me along the lines of how I am a child abuser or support child abuse or dont care about kids or make some snidey incidious comment. Prove me wrong.

[Deleted User]

junkmayle wrote: »

Shel - Glad you outed yourself. I suspected by your language in #26 and your total avoidance in answering my questions to you in #27 that you are part of the child protection industry. I, however, am happy to answer yours. First of all, dont simply view convictions as spent just because someone reaches 18. The rehabilitation period for the offences you are probably referring to are 10 years, maybe more. Maybe these people should be in prison anyway. Chance of staying out of trouble that length of time must be small, so these offences WOULD show on a CRB. If an individual DOES remain out of trouble after so long then maybe they HAVE sorted themselves out. Now, answer my question to you in #27. I dont believe you are unwilling to answer, simply unable. If so, have the guts to stand up and say so. Are you one of the hysterical handwringers so prevalent in your industry who seem to be forever saying 'the children are at risk' and yet, when asked to state why or how, you resemble a fish on dry land, mouth opening and closing but nothing coming out? Anyway, read ALL of my posts. There is a sentence AFTER 'spent convictions should be wiped' which answers the question I have just answered again. You have totally ignored the point of the teacher half killing the pupil and the Little Teds incident. I will make a prediction about you though. If you even reply, instead of answering my question, you will probably make a personal attack on me along the lines of how I am a child abuser or support child abuse or dont care about kids or make some snidey incidious comment. Prove me wrong.

Outed myself :rotfl:If you had looked through my previous posts, as I have yours, you would see I make no secret of the fact I'm a social worker.

SNIDEY COMMENT >>>> Unlike you who obviously has something to hide from your posting history on this matter, you are an angry chap arent you.

Please dont quote rehabilatation periods to me, I work with this daily, no idea where you pull 10 yrs from wouldnt be that much even for an adult.
Childrens offences, regardless of the crime, are spent when they each adulthood. Not all child sex offenders go to prison so no they would not be in prison, nor would they have nesessarly committed another offence yet. Some dont, they work with probation and therapists and stay 'clean' for some time, returning to the behaviour in adulthood. Perhaps after they have got a job working with vulnerable people who they can abuse.

If a person has a crimianl history AND they are serious about wanting to work with children they should have no issue in declaring their history and explaining it.
I most certianly am not a hand wringer as you call it. I have a history 'in care' myself, have criminal convictions and am now a social worker who has no issue with explaining my actions to potential employers. Why would I, I have nothing to hide. Convictions when relating to working with vulnerable people are not and should never be spent. If that concerns you dont try and get a job in a field that needs a CRB.

As I have already explained to you to make an assessment if someone is a risk I/the risk assesor would need further information. Snap judgements are not made on the basis of 2 lines in forum/application circumstances are taken into account. With the information to hand it does not appear to be a major barrier, but with more information that barrier may change either way.

PLEASE DO NOT SHOUT AT ME AND MAKE DEMANDS OF AT THE SAME TIME, THEY ARE LIKELY TO REFUSED. IF YOU MADE YOU QUESTIONS CLEARER INSTEAD OF SHOUTING AND PRESENTING IT AS JUMBLED MESS OF ANGER YOU MAY GET A CLEARER ANSWER.

As I've already said, take a chill pill.

Savvy_Sue

junkmayle wrote: »

many have been lulled into a false sense of security with CRBs.

I find myself putting little faith in CRBs myself: they're a tool we have to use when working with children or vulnerable adults, but they're by no means the only tool we should use.

Also the system is about to have some changes: can't remember the details atm, but maybe shel can help?

junkmayle

Shel - You say you dont know where I get 10 years from. The rehabilitation of offenders act 1974 is quite clear and widely known. It quotes - Prison sentences of 2 and half years or more are never spent. Prison sentences from 6 months to two and half years are spent after 10 years. Fines, community service various orders etc spent after five years. Absolute discharge spent after six months. Follow the link to see for yourself - http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/rehabact.htm You also asked how the system could be improved. I said to stop counting convictions as spent on reaching 18. You told me what the law is now. As per my prediction, you have not answered my question and have tried to deflect people for your inadequacy. I will repeat my question using words with as few syllables as possible.


Do you think that OP friends 13 year old benefit fraud conviction puts any child at that club at risk?

If the answer is anything other that a simple NO, then state clearly what they are at risk of.

If anyone else thinks that question is not clear, can they please let us know.

Kurjam - If you are still following this thread, you can see the kind of mentality that your friend is up against.

[Deleted User]

If you re read my post I have given you my answer............................

"As I have already explained to you to make an assessment if someone is a risk I/the risk assesor would need further information. Snap judgements are not made on the basis of 2 lines in forum/application circumstances are taken into account. With the information to hand it does not appear to be a major barrier, but with more information that barrier may change either way."

It is not fair to applicant and the employer could be missing out on an excellent employee if they were to make such a decision with no information.

You are encouaging a snap decision based on very little information. but at the same time in other posts you state...

"If an individual DOES remain out of trouble after so long then maybe they HAVE sorted themselves out."

That is the point of my answer, so many people do stupid things at difficult times in their lives and should not be forever judged on it. They have sorted themselves out and if they were serious about doing this type of work and were willing to discuss it with the employer and they may well get the type of job that requires an enhanced CRB. 1 in 4 people who apply for such jobs with a criminal record do get the job. But ONLY if they are willing to discuss it so the fact they have changed their ways and have sorted themselves out can be established and a decison that is fair to applicant can be made.

example.........

Applicant CRB states assault against a minor making them a (what was) sched 1 offender. Alarm bells ring, immediate thoughts are I would not employ this person.
At interview the applicant brings it up and explains they were also young at the time, the same age as the person they assaulted. The 'assault' consisted of a fight, not an attack. They had other 'issues' at the time, family, school etc. They have no other similar offences in the years since then. All that information makes it likely that person would be employed.

junkmayle

Shel - The answer to the first question is a simple yes or no. The second question, should you feel the lady is a risk, should be easy for you to answer but given your worrying lack of knowledge re rehabilitation periods which you claim you work with daily, is no surprise that you cant answer. Anyway, lets have a look at the more obvious holes in your reply. You stated 'That is the point of my answer, so many people do stupid things at difficult times in their lives and should not be forever judged on it.' Dont you have any concept of irony? This is exactly what you and your ilk are doing time and time again. Do you really believe a one-sided, highly selective and sanitised version of events will allow you to make a 'judgement'?

You also state 'But ONLY if they are willing to discuss it so the fact they have changed their ways and have sorted themselves out can be established and a decison that is fair to applicant can be made.' Simply looking at the CRB will tell you the date and nature of the last offence. In the specific case of the OP, it was 13 years ago. No discussion needed. Indeed, conviction should be wiped.

In the example you give, again looking at the date of the offence, you should be able to work out that the applicant was a minor himself at the time without discussing it. He/she can spin any old yarn regarding 'justification' and you would be none the wiser if it were true or false. Quite frankly, I find the idea that someone should have to explain the circumstances of a schoolboy fight to strangers for the next 50 years or so is nauseating and merely reinforces my assertation that rehabilitation no longer exists.

[Deleted User]

You are entitled to your opinion and no doubt that opinion will never change. If you do not want to work with vunerable people then why does this concern you so much.

It concerns me as someone who lived in the 'care system' being 'cared for by people dead set on abusing children. It also concerns me because it is those vulnerable children I now work with and try to correct the damage done to them by abuse at the hands of adults who will do anything to get a job near them to abuse them.
I am allowed to pass judgement because I have stood up and been counted, admitted my sins, trained, registered and qualified as a social worker and am now paid to give my judgement. You on the other hand are not.

Floxxie

kurjam wrote: »

hi my sisters friend as been offered a job in a childrens club, for 5 - 12 yearolds.
they have sent of the crb form, but she is unsure if they will still want her.
13 years ago she failed to tell the jobcentre her boyfriend had moved in and claimed benefits as if she was single :: yes she now knows this was silly anyway...

she got a job and paid back all the money she claimed, even before it got to court.
anyway she got a 12 month conditional dis charge... she as never re offended, she learnt her lesson.
but will this stp the club employing her ??
and is this discharge now what they call a spent conviction ??

thank you

If you take a look at this website http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/offender/criminal_record/ this should have the answers to the questions you originally asked.