We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
illegal job questions
Comments
-
Ihatecameron wrote: »You are behind a till serving customers in a shop, where does the actual contact take place?
Yes, and what about measuring up a child for clothes, manning the changing rooms etc?
I for one would be reassured that the store has vetted an employee rather than not ask a question and employ a !!!!!.0 -
paddedjohn wrote: »WHY HAVE I BEEN CENSORED ABOVE? I ONLY SAID A S S, AS IN DONKEY!:p
Yes, and I only wrote
p
a
e
d
o
p
h
i
l
e
and that was censored! How pathetic.0 -
Yes, and what about measuring up a child for clothes, manning the changing rooms etc?
I for one would be reassured that the store has vetted an employee rather than not ask a question and employ a !!!!!.
Oh stop being over dramatic would you - you wont know they are unless they have been convicted and then they would be on the sex offenders register..
Good god there should be a new law similar to godwins.."If you no longer go for a gap, you are no longer a racing driver" - Ayrton Senna0 -
Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »Oh stop being over dramatic would you - you wont know they are unless they have been convicted and then they would be on the sex offenders register..
Good god there should be a new law similar to godwins..
Get lost, you don't know me or my life and experiences!:mad:
The law is clear and it is what I have stated. Anybody who has close contact with a child is vetted.
Why would you be against that? Makes you wonder...0 -
Yes, and what about measuring up a child for clothes, manning the changing rooms etc?
I for one would be reassured that the store has vetted an employee rather than not ask a question and employ a !!!!!.
By this reckoning we should vet people for walking down the high street. People working in retail will not be in a situation where they are alone with children, they are in a public place.0 -
Get lost, you don't know me or my life and experiences!:mad:
The law is clear and it is what I have stated. Anybody who has close contact with a child is vetted.
Why would you be against that? Makes you wonder...
People working in retail are generally not CBR'd so you are completely wrong, it is not considered 'close contact'. As for your disgusting inference about another poster, you should apologize for that.0 -
Ihatecameron wrote: »By this reckoning we should vet people for walking down the high street. People working in retail will not be in a situation where they are alone with children, they are in a public place.
People walking down a street are not in a workplace!
And a retailer is a private enterprise, hardly a public place!0 -
People working in retail are generally not CBR'd so you are completely wrong, it is not considered 'close contact'. As for your disgusting inference about another poster, you should apologize for that.
You say people working in retail are generally not checked, then you say I am completely wrong!
Now what is it? By your own words I am at least partially right yet far from completely wrong.
You will find that stores that have childrens dept's do in fact require an enhanced disclosure for those working in that dept.
I'm sorry but I have to wonder to myself why anyone questions this.0 -
People walking down a street are not in a workplace!
And a retailer is a private enterprise, hardly a public place!
Unless you have to pay admission, and even then, there is such a thing as public swimming baths. If a premises is open to the public then it is classed as a public area, as in shopping centres for eg.0 -
You say people working in retail are generally not checked, then you say I am completely wrong!
Now what is it? By your own words I am at least partially right yet far from completely wrong.
You will find that stores that have childrens dept's do in fact require an enhanced disclosure for those working in that dept.
I'm sorry but I have to wonder to myself why anyone questions this.
Unless there has been a change in the law I don't believe there is a legal requirement for CRB checks in positions such as general retail - regardless of whether it's a children's department or not. Obviously if someone was responsible for fitting children that may be another issue.
Why do people question this - because it causes a backlog for those of us who do have to run valid CRB checks for those people applying for jobs where there is true contact with children and/or vunerable adults.
And before anything is said - yes I have been CRB checked (for what it's worth taking into account Jeff Bridge's quite correct summary).
It should also be remembered that statements made online in forums (even if it is in the heat of the moment) can be libellous...........“This isn't life in the fast lane, it's life in the oncoming traffic.” - Terry PratchettDebt Target - £0 Target Date - January 2015eo 07/13 - £23,080 eo 08/13 - £21,084 eo 09/13 - £20,347 eo 10/13 - £19,5550
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards