43000 people forced to move because of benefit cap

chewmylegoff

if we're going to demand that landlords have CRB checks, there are a few other "professions" we might want to clear up first. we could start with police officers, eh brit?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/11/police-officers-criminal-records

Cleaver

Percy1983 wrote: »

Cleaver you really are missing the point.

A teacher can be in a position where they can have access to children so has a CRB check.
A landlord can be in a position where they can have access to children so should have a CRB check.

As per usual you like to make examples with little relevance.

Is it okay for your electrician to also be a master forger? are children at risk?
Is it okay for the person you buy your sandwiches from to also be a burglar? are children at risk?
Is it okay for the cinema worker to also be a murderer? are children at risk?

No I don't believe all people who commit a crime should have there life written off, but I do believe we should protect children.

So, just to clarify. You want to set up a body that will CRB check landlords. This body will require a change in law so that this can happen. You then feel that all landlords should be CRB checked on the chance that the landlord goes to the home of one of his tenants, finds a child there alone and does something to that child?

Firstly, before you say it, if someone did the above then it's obviously not okay. But that's different to saying that we need a CRB system to help with the situation above. Sad to say that anyone can abuse a child. However, we don't need to start CRB checking every single profession that has a vague and tenuous link to children. Landlords included.

Cleaver

Percy1983 wrote: »

Is it okay for your electrician to also be a master forger? are children at risk?
Is it okay for the person you buy your sandwiches from to also be a burglar? are children at risk?
Is it okay for the cinema worker to also be a murderer? are children at risk?

By the way, just on this point, I would hazard a guess that electricians, sandwich makers and cinema workers come in to contact with children far, far more often than landlords do on a day to day basis whilst at work.

mj12_2

mj12 wrote: »

Do priests have to have CRB checks just as a matter of interest

Apparently not...
http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/PDF/foi%2014722.pdf

Cleaver

mj12 wrote: »

Do priests have to have CRB checks just as a matter of interest?

My understanding is that no one 'has to have' a CRB check. The CRB issue a list of people who can be CRB checked by employers. The employers then choose whether or not they want to CRB check people for the purposes of making a decision around employment, and the employer can still recruit whoever they like, regardless of anything on their CRB.

Obviously, in the real world, every single organisation that works with vulnerable adults and children has a CRB policy which normally states that they do CRB people and that they will not employ people who don't meet their requirements. But whilst they all do do this because they know that if they don't harm may come to people and that they could be taken to court if they don't have evidence that they try to product people who use their service (through steps such as a CRB system), my understanding is that there is no legal requirement per se for any organisation to do CRB checks on employees.

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

You've missed the point of my post. No, !!!!!phile teachers aren't okay in any way, shape or form, hence all teachers and indeed anyone working with children requiring, by law, to have an enhanced CRB check.

I believe such people as meter readers do now have to have basic CRB check.

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

My understanding is that no one 'has to have' a CRB check. The CRB issue a list of people who can be CRB checked by employers. The employers then choose whether or not they want to CRB check people for the purposes of making a decision around employment, and the employer can still recruit whoever they like, regardless of anything on their CRB.

Obviously, in the real world, every single organisation that works with vulnerable adults and children has a CRB policy which normally states that they do CRB people and that they will not employ people who don't meet their requirements. But whilst they all do do this because they know that if they don't harm may come to people and that they could be taken to court if they don't have evidence that they try to product people who use their service (through steps such as a CRB system), my understanding is that there is no legal requirement per se for any organisation to do CRB checks on employees.

It is a legal requirement for driving instructors, even before they can start training.

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

It is a legal requirement for driving instructors, even before they can start training.

I'm going to sound really pedantic, but my understanding is that you need to be registered with the DLA to become a driving instructor. One of the DLA's requirements is a CRB check. It's obviously only a subtle difference, but it shows that there is no law stating that CRBs must be done for driving instructors, as I don't believe any laws exist stating that anyne has to be CRB checked. But there is a law stating that driving instructors must be registered with the DLA, who have decided that the CRB will be part of their registration process.

If that pedantry makes sense.

ILW

Cleaver wrote: »

I'm going to sound really pedantic, but my understanding is that you need to be registered with the DLA to become a driving instructor. One of the DLA's requirements is a CRB check. It's obviously only a subtle difference, but it shows that there is no law stating that CRBs must be done for driving instructors, as I don't believe any laws exist stating that anyne has to be CRB checked. But there is a law stating that driving instructors must be registered with the DLA, who have decided that the CRB will be part of their registration process.

If that pedantry makes sense.

On the pedantry point, I think it is the DSA.:p

Percy1983

CarlosTheJackal wrote: »

In the future Landlords will need to be veted and have to apply for a licence!

I hope so.