Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 7 of 21
  1. #1

    OT: CRB checks, should they be dropped?

    Finally the courts have ruled these checks to be unlawful. I always felt they were simply an ill thought knee jerk reaction and not in any way providing a fix. Instead it creates a guilty until proven innocent ethos going against everything out legal system stands for. This is a law designed to protect children and one which has proven itself to be a complete failure and a total waste of money. Does it always follow that someone who has committed a crime will end up a nonce? Or does it follow that an upstanding member of society (such as a priest) with no criminal convictions will be the perfect role model to our children? Of course not. Instead we have a stupid law that is destroying lives. The only time I can see these kinds of checks and more justified is in a job like mine that requires security clearance. Instead we have parents afraid to help out at their local sports club because they may have a minor criminal record from their youth that they cannot risk being revealed for fear of it affecting their income etc. Hopefully the Gov't listen to the court ruling and actually obey it. Somehow I doubt they will.
    Never trust a man who doesn't like cats. -
    www.windsurf.me.uk.

  2. #2
    Senior Member /Vico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Distinctly Average View Post

    Or does it follow that an upstanding member of society (such as a priest) with no criminal convictions will be the perfect role model to our children? Of course not.
    Are you quite sure that the purpose of the law is to seek a perfect role model for our children, or does it exist to identify those with previous convictions for kiddy fiddling to those who otherwise would have no way of checking?
    It is what it is.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Billyboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    11,747
    There's plenty of Nanny state legislation supposedly "protecting" children. fx a good friend of ours does childminding for our kids. She is not registered as its expensive to do and she would be rejected anyway. Why? Because she was in hospital in the last 12 months. We know why and when she was in hospital and are completely happy with her looking after our children, but the government is not. Its therefore illegal for her to look after our kids > 2hrs a day. How ridiculous the government expects me to leave my kids with complete strangers rather than a close friend. Really winds me up!

  4. #4
    Senior Member /Vico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Billyboy View Post

    Its therefore illegal for her to look after our kids > 2hrs a day.
    No it isn't. She just can't be a registered childminder.

    Now, let's all hear about conkers and eye protection. And the EU and bent bananas.
    It is what it is.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Billyboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    11,747
    I think you'll find it is illegal if the kids are under 8, she's not in our house and we are paying her. Its obviously not something that is stringently enforced, but there have been cases as you can see in the link. Anyway, she's not breaking the law because she only looks after them for max 2hrs a day, but its a right pain she can't do longer. Especially on windy days . The 2hr rule is completely weird as well. Surely you are either safe to look after kids or you are not? How long you have them is surely irrelevant...
    Last edited by Billyboy; 29th January 2013 at 02:08 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member paul2010's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,394
    Quote Originally Posted by /Vico View Post
    And the EU and bent bananas.


    and healthy food

  7. #7
    Senior Member /Vico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,331
    Quote Originally Posted by Billyboy View Post
    I think you'll find it is illegal if the kids are under 8, she's not in our house and we are paying her. Its obviously not something that is stringently enforced, but there have been cases as you can see in the link. Anyway, she's not breaking the law because she only looks after them for max 2hrs a day, but its a right pain she can't do longer. Especially on windy days . The 2hr rule is completely weird as well. Surely you are either safe to look after kids or you are not? How long you have them is surely irrelevant...
    The point I was making about Distinctly's OP was that nobody expects laws like these to be watertight - it's all about what is best on balance, and over time these things need adjusting or binning. Watching some elderly lady having to remove her shoes at an airport security check (and knowing full well that she won't have to do that on the way back), or being pulled over by MODPlod in Portsmouth harbour at 3 in the afternoon while they check for terrorists - I'm sure we've all seen the occasional absurdity.

    Incidentally there was a piece about childcare on the Today programme and how there are moves afoot to increase the number of kids that a childminder can have under their care at one time. Apparently the French do it better than us.
    It is what it is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •