tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post1279133605793512937..comments2024-03-25T12:55:40.911+00:00Comments on Caron's Musings: Keeping my child safe - an over-anxious mum writesAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04988201531739344840noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-75163019842116109222009-09-14T05:17:02.793+01:002009-09-14T05:17:02.793+01:00@richardt I appreciate your comments.
Two other c...@richardt I appreciate your comments.<br /><br />Two other concerns.<br /><br />1 - We are already seeing cases under vetting and barring where the sheer time to process cases - despite claims to expedite the process etc etc - are ruining careers. <br /><br />This is a concern raised previously by lawyers where time limits on investigations have been excluded from legislation, resulting in people accused but not found guilty being suspended for long enough to do sufficient damage that they may as well have been thrown out anyway.<br /><br />Ask any teachers union what happens to employees in these circumstances - they leave the profession. <br /><br />2 - We already. I don't believe that more complex processes will work anyway.<br /><br />Here's an example of someone who is a victim of these processes not working already, in a thread on the CosmoDaddy blog. The whole thread is an excellent discussion from people deeply involved in the issue on both sides.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">Account of safeguarding processes not working</a><br /><br />(http://cosmodaddy.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/the-independent-safeguarding-authority-breaches-human-rights/#comment-3020)<br /><br />Above all, I'm frightened by the bull-headed approach of our current govt, who will hardly ever back down on a declared policy even when it is shown to be bad.trMatt Wardmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04326720801362744582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-77007029972374211372009-09-13T21:18:50.709+01:002009-09-13T21:18:50.709+01:00As a life-long volunteer, currently as a male coac...As a life-long volunteer, currently as a male coach working with female atheletes, I too recognise the issues that "Scout Leader" identifies. Like me, I have a feeling he's now a leader in an organisation that he was once a member of, filling in the forms and waiting for background checks to come back is just part of the price we pay to carry on volunteering. Those who left BBs/Scouts/Guides etc as young teenagers could offer so much to our organisations but are so very easily put off.<br /><br />Yes, some adults are exceptionally devious and until they're *actually* caught doing something "wrong", all the checks in the world will still come up with nothing - a clean sheet.<br /><br />In fact a group of young people going off to a Pipe Band competition (for example) in a convoy of cars are more likely to be at risk from a parent whose car does not have a valid MOT (and thus no insurance).<br /><br />Although the data was complied in the US, on a recent 'Duty of Care' course the tutor pointed out that 90% of attacks on childre and young people are non-fatal and are carried out by other family members or close family friends - ie the victim knew their attacker. <br /><br />I feel so frustrated that Richard T somehow believes that the balance of risk" somehow justifies this approach as a sort of necessary evil (I know my words not his). As most others have pointed out its plain wrong and will be unworkabale. More worringly it will encourage the 'tick the box' culture so that the concerns of a questioning group leader will be replaced by a "blank" piece of paper.<br /><br />Grrrrrrr!Gordonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-52728364384043598312009-09-13T10:33:14.342+01:002009-09-13T10:33:14.342+01:00I used to adminster the present scottish system fo...I used to adminster the present scottish system for a local authority. Our approach was agreed by the council following input from social work, education, legal and personnel. Our starting point was minimisation of risk to a child or vulnerable adult, bearing in mind that potential offenders can be remarkably devious - think of grooming in chatrooms - linked to the basic right to privacy of the individual we wished vetted and established a commonsense criterion - was there opportunity for significant sole contact? If yes then enhanced disclosure; if maybe then a careful look at the individual case; if no then we did not seek disclosure. On balance, we saw no reason to check parents driving children to school events but this was an area where there was some genuine unease on the part of the professionals in social work and education. One of their reservations was whether we would wish a parent with a string of driving convictions to be trusted with others children.<br /><br />The problem may lie in the fact that the disclosure process goes into old time expired cases, as well as allegations not taken up; it also covers all disciplinary action against an individual which relates to the disclosure decision and all convictions. However, the point is that a record does not automatically determine the outcome. That decision should rest with the employing formation to consider in relation to the job so an old non repeated offence committed when young will not necessarily disqualify. So for example, despite the potential outcry from the yellow press, a fine for possession of a social drug when a student would not normally disqualify someone in their 40s.<br /><br />The key point for us was the balance of risk, knowing how children and vulnerable adults can come to rely on and trust someone who is 'working for the council'. Remember as well that many child abusers are part of the family. Accordingly, despite the arguments on civil liberty grounds, the aim is actually worthy although in my view, from what I have read in the media the approach seems over zealous.Richard Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17225331967587897653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-85664158462415295182009-09-13T09:25:09.223+01:002009-09-13T09:25:09.223+01:00While I'm bemused that this has suddenly hit t...While I'm bemused that this has suddenly hit the media (it has been in the works for years), I'm pleased to see the coverage - and you have written a great article.<br /><br />This><br />I can see a situation where a man in his mid 30s, driving the minibus for his daughters' hockey team, could be barred from so doing because 20 years ago he got his couple of months' younger girlfriend pregnant when he was 16 and she was still 15and her parents complained to the Police. That would be a ridiculous overreaction but one, sadly, that could happen.<br /><br />...has already happened, and the type of logic will happen routinely imo. Such a case was discussed on the swarb.co.uk legal forums. I think it was under CRB, but the principles are the same. This is roughly the account.<br /><br />The parts of the mechanism that you may not be aware of are that cautions, previously "take a caution to close this quickly", now stay on your record until you are 100 (act from last 5 years or so). In the case I mention it was a fumble that turned into sex, embarrassed parents who made their child complain to the police, and this is a sex crime. Caution accepted, but 15 and 3/4 teenager who told partner they were 16 at party later withdraws allegation.<br /><br />Unfortunately a caution cannot be withdrawn easily once accepted, so the party who accepted it gets denied work as a security guard under CRB when at univerity, and will not now ever be able to work in caring professions.<br /><br />If you bear in mind the stories last year about Councils beginning to build databases of allegations which will be retained unless they can be specifically proved to be false, and the atmosphere under which school governors etc - consider the treatment of photographers (e.g., Dave Gorman - http://gormano.blogspot.com/2007/07/twisted.html)- are going to make decisions, what do you think is going to happen to all the people with inconclusive information disclosed at the discretion of Chief Constables?<br /><br />(clue: http://bit.ly/johnpinnington)<br /><br />A veritable Dangerous Dogs Act (or the lockup the parents of truants Act that we have currently).<br />I'd suggest this setup will eventually eat itself when amid massive damage to our caring services and children unnecessarily denied parents - assuming that this will feed into the "has my partner any questionable history" process which is being piloted.<br /><br />I'd encourage you to dig into this and keep digging.<br /><br />What a f*cking mess (sorry), but you may be spared the worst of it in Scotland.<br /><br />Unfortunately Tom Harris for one has drunk the Kool Aid on this one (same as ID cards).<br /><br />For me, I will not be volunteering to anything involving children for the foreseeable - because I'm not taking the risk of what happens if an upset parent or child *does* say something. <br /><br />I think that anyone volunteering - especially those working in the caring professions - will be fools to expose themselves to any unnecessary risk of false allegations, bearing in mind that the consequences may be loss of your career.Matt Wardmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04326720801362744582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-7189201870913148002009-09-12T23:09:04.111+01:002009-09-12T23:09:04.111+01:00I don't get the spurious at best dig at the Sc...I don't get the spurious at best dig at the Scottish Government about this? I've certainly not seen any suggestion that our current systems through Disclosure Scotland will be changed in the near future? Maybe I've missed something though. <br /><br />Speaking as a Scout Leader, I do know that the biggest reason people don't come along is because they fear accusation of wrong doings, but that's a societal thing, not a legislative thing.<br /><br />People don't come along because the form asks a bit too many questions, or because they're worried that we'll get told something about them; they know that everything will be handled sensibly, and it's not the form that puts people off. Perhaps the legislation impacts on the public psyche and will make it worse, but I doubt it. There have always been wee blue forms to fill in before you work with vulnerable people, and almost every charity that's worth its salt always went above and beyond what the law required anyway.<br /><br />I can understand your concerns about this legislation, I can certainly see many issues and problems that they might face that could have been easily avoided - for one, I think they'll have a GIGANTIC backlog, I think they underestimate the scale of work they're about to give themselves.Grogipherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12781013801121569150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-75655139837473075112009-09-12T14:44:23.789+01:002009-09-12T14:44:23.789+01:00Thank you for writing this. I have no children but...Thank you for writing this. I have no children but feel that children are being used by the ever growing nanny state we are living in today.<br /><br />The wife and I have no idea what parents worries are today but as the media feed their worst nightmares I can see what a difficult job they have.<br /><br />As a non parent I see this law as another feeding frenzy on family life.<br /><br />I wish you and your family a fear free life.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10072165710888952465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34128264.post-52576158794307410432009-09-12T11:55:13.046+01:002009-09-12T11:55:13.046+01:00This is a shocking piece of legislation and has to...This is a shocking piece of legislation and has to be stopped. People will just refuse to help children or friends then children will miss out on many activities.<br /><br />I've emailed my MSP and MP to state my anger at society being destroyed so blatantly.<br /><br />Labour are so determined to have everyone in the country registered on a database they've now resorted to using children for the purpose.subrosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151702590329788260noreply@blogger.com