DBS check, is it needed?

mjm3346

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

"Trust but Verify". What a witless oxymoron. "Don't Trust", in other words.

Presumably if some people were "don't trust" they would be ruled out without further checks and the "Trust but Verify" would go forwards to be checked.

[Deleted User]

If it’s regulated activity you have a legal obligation to perform dbs check.

motorguy

General_Applause wrote: »

If you have known them for many years, trust your judgement. Buying a government 'safety certificate' will add nothing for you.

It will tell you if someone has attained a criminal record in the meantime for who knows what. Not beyond the realms of possibility.

Better safe than sorry, surely?

motorguy

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

"Trust but Verify". What a witless oxymoron. "Don't Trust", in other words.

If you gave someone £10,000 a week to lodge for your business, would you not occasionally check your bank balance to make sure they had lodged it?

If you asked a subordinate to write a report for you that you were to present to senior management, would you blindly accept that its fit for purpose, or would you take even a cursory read at it to confirm its fine?

Or you're buying your friend's old phone. As you take it from him, you check that it still works. Of course, you trust him but you still want to avoid the chance of buying a phone that doesn't work. You don't expect that the phone won't work (hence some level of trust) but you still feel the need to verify it.

Or you're in the customer services industry and someone is applying for a mortgage. They tell you they are on £150,000 a year. Do you blindly trust that or confirm via audit checks for payslips, etc?

Personally, in this situation i would feel a duty of care to these vulnerable adults to confirm the individuals concerned can still pass a DBS check.

But if blind trust works for you and you're happy to take a risk with vulnerable adults wellbeing based on your gut feeling....

motorguy

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Nod, people that say it really mean "trust no-one", but don't want to say so.

I disagree. Strong trust is based on verification and validation.

Think of someone you trust implicitly. You do so because they have confirmed that trust in their actions day after day.

I dont think the O/P can hand on their heart say they trust these people implicitly and nor do i think with a duty of care to these vulnerable adults they should be taking any risk with their wellbeing.

motorguy

Apart from anything, whats the issue?

"We are obliged to ensure that everyone dealing with these vulnerable young adults has an up to date DBS check" - whos going to object to that?

motorguy

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

"Trust but Verify". What a witless oxymoron. "Don't Trust", in other words.

And if you were the parent of one of those young adults, would you want someone just to blindly trust people working with them, just because they have been known to them in the past?

[Deleted User]

motorguy wrote: »

And if you were the parent of one of those young adults, would you want someone just to blindly trust people working with them, just because they have been known to them in the past?

A full seven hours before the 'children' card is played; much longer than I anticipated.


I am merely commenting on the use of language. The examples you give in an earlier post are totally irrelevant to the point I was making. 'Trust but Verify' is a stupid phrase in all contexts. If you trust something or someone you don't need to verify it or them. If you do verify them it's because initially you don't trust them. A phrase such as 'Trust but Verify' is just the sort of meaningless clap-trap you can expect from the likes of the NSPCC, local councils and others.


As far as I can see, rtegular DBS checks are carried out because, in essence, no one is trusted to have any involvement whatsoever with children. The working assumption is that everyone is a sexual abuser but a DBS check will go some way towards validating that they haven't yet been caught.

JGB1955

A DBS check is out of date (and fairly meaningless) one minute after it's issued.

Kim_kim

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

As far as I can see, rtegular DBS checks are carried out because, in essence, no one is trusted to have any involvement whatsoever with children. The working assumption is that everyone is a sexual abuser but a DBS check will go some way towards validating that they haven't yet been caught.

Are you saying that DBS checks are overkill?
Because for years we didn’t do things and trusted people on their “character” and how long we had known them or because they had a close connection with someone we knew/respected.

That didn’t work out so well :-(